



JMB 




^wlH 'lr*l 












- 




feMMR^^ 


■::'" ' \ 


ifflK^fHH 


BIS 






wSE 


1 


"ml^iilli 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 







UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



w 












ft. 


in 




MAY 22 i tt{H 



A VINDICATION 



MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP 



OF THE 



PENTATEUCH 



BY 



Charles Elliott, d. d., 

Professor of Hebrew in Lafayette College, Easton, Penn. 




CINCINNATI: 

WALDEN AND STOWE 

NEW YORK: PHILLIPS 4 HUNT. 
1884. 






Copyright by 

WALDEN & STOWE, 

1884. 



PREFACE. 



This brief treatise does not profess to be a 
special contribution to the criticism of the Pen- 
tateuch. Its aim is to state the arguments for 
and against its Mosaic authorship, and to con- 
sider their validity. In doing this the author 
does not claim freedom from presuppositions, a 
state of mind which seems to him impossible, 
and which is possessed least of all by those who 
so rigidly require it of others. He feels, how- 
ever, that he has dealt impartially in the state- 
ment of facts and arguments. 

The Introduction has only a general connec- 
tion with the subject discussed. Its object is to 
give a short outline of the origin of the Higher 
Criticism. 

The plan of the treatise is first to remove 
objections against the Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch, and then to exhibit the positive 
proofs of that authorship. 



4 PREFA CE. 

Due acknowledgment has been made in the 
course of the treatise of the works which have 
been used in the preparation of it. 

If this treatise shall prove useful to ministers 

and students of the Bible who have not access 

to strictly critical and exhaustive treatises on the 

Pentateuch, the author will be amply rewarded. 

CHARLES ELLIOTT. 

Lafayette College, Easton, Penn., "I 
January 1, 1884. J 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. 



Biblical Criticism of Recent Origin — Used in Two Senses — 
Literary or Higher Criticism — Consists of Two Parts — 
Sometimes called "Destructive" — Its Principles not 
entirely New — Its History inseparably connected with 
that of Rationalism— The Term Rationalism not of very 
Recent Date — Attempt to identify Rationalism with 
English Deism — Distinction between Them — Roman 
Catholics and Rationalists have considered Rationalism 
a Natural Development of the Reformation — First 
Movements of Rationalism were among the Socini- 
ans — Pietism — "Wolff, English Deists, French Infidels — 
Lessing, Basedow — Grotius, Wetstein — Ernesti, Mi- 
chaelis— Semler — His Views on the Canon — His Theory 
of Accommodation — Sender's Distinction between the 
Local, the Temporary, etc — Eichhorn — Paulus — New 
Influences : Philosophical, Literary, Political, and Spir- 
itual — Kant — Jacobi — Fichte — Schelling — Hegel — Liter- 
ary Influences — Political Influences — Spiritual Influ- 
ences — Schleiermacher — De Wette — Strauss— Tubingen 
School — Baur — New Influences since 1848 — Leading 
Principle of the Higher Criticism subjective — Influ- 
ence of this Principle — Conclusion, .... Pages 11-39 



CONTENTS. 



Part I. 

Sutl\of^ip kqd doir\po^itiori of tl\e Pei\tkteudl). 



CHAPTER I. 

THEORIES OF THE COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE 
PENTATEUCH. 

Ptolemseus — Nazarenes — Clementine Homilies — Bogomili— 
Isaak ben Jasos and Aben Esra — Andreas Masius — 
Hobbes — Isaak Peyrerius — Spinoza— Richard Simon — 
Clericus — Vitringa — Documentary Hypothesis — As- 
true — Jerusalem — Schultens — Ilgen — Eichhorn — Frag- 
mentary Hypothesis — Vater — Hartmann — Supple- 
mentary Hypothesis — De Wette — Langerke — Zuch — 
Stahelin — Hupfeld — Vaihinger — Delitzsch — Kurtz — 
E vvald — Dr. Samuel Davidson — Kuenen — Professor 
W. R. Smith, Pages 43-63 

CHAPTER II. 

ARGUMENTS URGED IN FAVOR OF THE DOCUMENTARY, FRAG- 
MENTARY, AND SUPPLEMENTARY HYPOTHESES AND 
AGAINST THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE 
PENTATEUCH. 

Section I. Elohim and Jehovah. — The two Names 
are used Interchangeably, Exodus vi, 3 — The Advo- 
cates of the Documentary Theory contradict One 
Another, Pages 64-73 

Section II. The two So-called Elohistic and Jehovistic Doc- 
uments said to be distinguished by Contradictions and vary- 
ing Legends. — Gen. i, 1-ii, 3, and ii, 4-iii — Gen. vi, 19, 
20, and vii, 2, 3— Gen. x, 7, 13, 22, 28, 29, and xxv, 3— 
Gen, xv, 18; Ex ? xxiii, 31; Num. xxxiv, 1-12; Deut. 



CONTENTS. 7 

xi, 24 ; compare Josh, i, 4 — Gen. xxv, 31-33, and Gen. 
xxvii, 1-29 — Gen. xxvii, 41-45; Gen. xxvii, 46-xxviii, 
1-9 — Gen. xxx, 23, 24— Gen. xxx, 25-43, and xxxi, 
4-48 — Gen. xxxii, 3, and xxxvi, 6-8 — Gen. xxxvi, 34 ; 
xxviii, 9, and xxxvi, 2, 3 — Gen. xxxii, 22-32, and 
xxxv, 10 — Gen. xxviii, 19, and xxxv, 9-15 — Gen. xxi, 
31, and xxvi, 33 — Gen. xxxvii, 25, 27, 28 ; xxxix, 1 ; 
xxxvii, 28, 36; xl, 15 — Gen. xxxix, 20; xl, 4; and 
xxxix, 21-23— Gen. xlii, 27, 35, and xliii, 21 — Ex. iii, 1 ; 
iv, 18 ; xviii, 1 ; ii, 18 (compare verse 21) ; and Num. 
x, 29-Ex. iv, 31, and vi, 9— Ex. iv, 2, 3, 20c; vii, 9 15, 
17, 19 ; viii, 16, 17 ; ix, 23, and x, 13— Ex. vi, 2ff. ; 
vii, 2 ; ix, 35 ; xi, 10 ; iii, 18 ; v, 1, 3 ; vii, 16 ; viii, 1 ; 
x, 3, 8, 24-26— Ex. ii, 22; iv, 20, and xviii, 2-6— Ex. 
xviii, 13ff. ; Deut. i, 9-18 — Lev. xxvii, 27 ; Num. xviii, 
16; xiii, 13; xxxiv, 20 — Ex. xxi, 1-6; and Deut. xv, 
12-18 ; Lev. xxiii ; Num. xxviii ; xxix ; Ex. xxiii, 14-16 ; 
xxxiv, 18-23; and Deut. xvi, 1-17 — Lev. xxiii, 18, 19; 
Num. xxviii, 27, 30— Ex. xxxviii, 25, 26 ; Num. i, com- 
pared with Ex. xxx, 12ff.— Num. iv, 6, and Ex. xxv, 
15— Num. iv, 3, 23, 30, 35, 47, and viii, 24, 25— Num. 
xiv, 45, and xxi, 3, Pages 73-106 

Section III Alleged Difference in the Circle of Ideas, and 
in the Usus Loquendi advanced as Proofs that the Pen- 
tateuch proceeded from Different Authors. — Difference in 
Language and Ideas — Usus Loquendi, . . Pages 106-110 

Section IV. Alleged want of Unity in the Pentateuch ad- 
duced as a Proof of Plurality of Authorship. — External 
Unity— Chronological Order of the Books — Internal 
Unity, Pages 110-122 

CHAPTER III. 

EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES WHICH ASSIGN THE PENTATEUCH 
TO A LATER DATE THAN THE TIME OF MOSES. 



Section I. — Gen. xii, 6 — xiii, 7 — xii, 8 — xiii, 10 — xiv, 
xiii, 8— xxxvi, 31— xxxix, 14 — Ex. vi, 26, 27; xi, 3; 



O CONTENTS. 

Num. xii, 3; xv, 22, 23; Deut. xxxiii, 1— Ex. x, 19; 
xvi, 35— Lev. xviii, 28— Num. xv, 32-36— Deut. i, 1— 
ii, 12 — iii, 9, 11, 14 — The phrase, "unto this day" — 
Deut. xxxiv, Pages 123-144 

Section II. The Three Codes: Covenant-Code, Deuter- 
onomic Code, and Priest-Code — Underlying Principle — 
Prof. W. K. Smith— Dr. Briggs — Difficulties of the 
Theory — Laws belonging to each of the So-called Codes 
bear the impress of a Nomadic Life — The Legislation 
of the Pentateuch points Back to Egypt and Forward 
to Canaan — The Ordinance as to Kings, Deut. xvii, 
14-20— Deut. xix, 14; xx— Ex. xx, 29, 30— Lev. xxvi, 
3-45 — Ex. xx, 22-xxiii, 20-23, and Deut. xxvii-xxx — 
Deut. xii, 5-14, the Central Altar — Samuel's and Eli- 
jah's Supposed Ignorance of the Deuteronomic Code — 
"High Places" — Assumptions of the Hypothesis — The 
Deuteronomic and Priest Codes were often Violated 
after the Exile, Pages 145-174 

Section III. Theory that all the Books of the Pentateuch are 
Post-Mosaic, that Deuteronomy was written about the year 
625 B. ft, perhaps by Hilkiah, and that the Middle Books of 
the Pentateuch are Post-exilic. — Principa Advocates of the 
Theory — Arguments in Defense of the Theory — Deut. 
x, 8— Deut. xviii, la — Deut. xviii, 3-8 — Deut. xxi, 5 — 
Deut. xxxi, 9 — Ezek. xliv — Silence of the Books of 
Samuel and Kings in Reference to the Distinction be- 
tween Priests and Levites — Circumstances of the Is- 
raelites not Favorable to the Influence of Priests — In- 
timations in the Books of Samuel of an existing Hier- 
archical Law — Evidence of Joshua ruled out by the 
Critics — Notices in Joshua of the Functions of the 
Priesthood — Notices in Samuel and Kings — Sources of 
the Chronicles — Notices in Chronicles of a Graduated 
Hierarchy — Ezra and Nehemiah — Conclusions — Find- 
ing of the Book of the Law by Hilkiah— When was 



CONTENTS. . 9 

Deuteronomy written ? — It existed in the Reign of Jo- 
siah ; in the Reign of Amaziah ; in the Time of Joash ; 
in the Time of Jehoshaphat ; in the Time of Solomon ; 
in the Time of David ; in the Time of the Judges— Ob- 
jection to Its Existence in the Time of Joshua (Josh, 
vii, 24, 25) — Existed in the Time of Joshua — Deuteron- 
omy Pre-supposes the Existence of the other Books of 
the Pentateuch — Date of Deuteronomy later than that 
of the other Books of the Pentateuch— Difficulties 
the Date of the Pentateuch later than the Time of 
Moses — References to the Pentateuch in the Subse- 
quent Books of the Old Testament, . . Pages 174-240 



10 CONTENTS. 

Part II. 

ftooi$ of }&.o&it Sut^ojf^ip of tlje Pei^tkteti^. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTERNAL PROOFS — INDIRECT AND DIRECT. 

Section I. Indirect Proofs. — The Mosaic Authorship of 
the Pentateuch consistent with the Use of Docu- 
ments—Not Inconsistent with Revision— There was 
Such a Man as Moses — The Art of Writing known 
before the Time of Moses — Antecedent Probability 
that Moses wrote the Pentateuch — The Author of the 
Pentateuch was acquainted with the Literature, Laws, 
and Religion of Egypt — The Pentateuch written by 
some one who was acquainted with, and had a share 
in, the Exodus, Pages 243-259 

Section II. Direct Proofs that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. — 
Moses commanded to write the Discomfiture of the 
Amalekites and the Journeys of the Israelites — Deut. 
xxxi, 9, 24-26 — The frequently recurring phrase, "The 
Lord said unto Moses " — The Proof that Moses wrote 
Genesis Indirect, Pages 259-263 

CHAPTER II. 

EXTERNAL PROOFS THAT MOSES WROTE THE PENTATEUCH. 

The Subsequent Books of the Old Testament ascribe it to 
Moses: Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and 
Nehemiah, Daniel — The Apocryphal Books— The Jew- 
ish Synagogues — Josephus — The Jewish Sects and the 
Samaritans — Christ and his Apostles — The Christian 
Church, . Pages 264-270 



INTRODUCTION. 



the: higher criticism. 

Biblical Criticism, properly so-called, is of 
comparatively recent origin. Its history begins 
after the Eeformation. That event was a protest 
asrainst human authority, an emanci- Biblical criti- 

„ .n i i • • i cismof 

pation from intellectual and spiritual recent origin. 
slavery. At the same time the Reformers de- 
clared, in the most decided terms, their belief 
in the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures. 
They believed in their plenary inspiration. These 
Scriptures were the umpire to which an appeal 
was made in all questions of religious doctrine. 
" Every thing to the test of Scripture " was the 
ultimate appeal of the Reformers: "every thing 
to the test of reason " became that of Rational- 
ism. The latter seems plausible, but it is falla- 
cious. If the Holy Scriptures contain a rev- 
elation from God, if their inspiration is fully 
established as a fact, then reason, though it 
may be exercised in the examination of the 



1 2 INTR OD UCTI ON. 

evidence of their divine origin, must bow to 
their authority. 

The expression Biblical Criticism has been 
used in two senses. In the one it has been 
applied not only to the means and efforts em- 
ployed to restore the text of the Bible to its 
original state, but also to the principles of inter- 
The phrase pretation. According to the other 
dSnused^n sense, it is confined to the former, while 
two senses. the i atfcer __ t h e principles of interpre- 
tation — constitute the science of Hermeneutics. 
In its strict and proper sense it comprehends 
the sum and substance of that knowledge which 
enables us to discover wrong readings, and to 
obtain, as nearly as possible, the very words of 
the sacred writers. The means of accomplishing 
this are the appliances of Sacred Criticism. The 
use of these appliances for the emendation of the 
text is properly designated Textual Criticism. 

The term " Literary " or " Higher Criticism " 
designates that type of Biblical Criticism which 
The Literary proposes to investigate the separate 
criticism. books of the Bible in their internal 
peculiarities, and to estimate them historically. 
It discusses the questions concerning their origin, 
the time and place, the occasion and object of 
their composition, and concerning their position 
and value in the entire body of revelation. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 13 

The " Higher Criticism " consists of two parts, 
the external and internal. The first, The Higher 
which is closely connected with Text- cSKsof 
ual Criticism, deals with external testi- two parts ' 
monies; e. g., in the New Testament, with the 
opinions of the Fathers upon the origin of the dif- 
ferent books, and with their citations from them. 
The second examines the books themselves, and 
seeks to draw from their contents, as a whole 
and as parts, the relations out of which they 
originated. 

The " Higher Criticism " has been so often 
employed for the overthrow of long-cherished 
beliefs that the epithet " destructive " sometimes 

culled " dc- 

has frequently been applied to it; and stractive." 
hence it has become an offense to some orthodox 
ears. But the very destruction which it has ac- 
complished — its achievements have not been com- 
mensurate with its aims — was, perhaps, necessary 
in order to raise a structure having more solid 
and more enduring foundations. 

The principles of critical investigation pro- 
pounded by the "Higher Criticism" are not 
entirely new. They are substantially principles of 
the old principles — abating some of its criticism'^ 1 

, , . . not entirely 

assumptions — employed in a w r ay in new. 
which many reverent and devout students of the 
Bible do not think it legitimate to employ them. 



1 4 INTE OD UCTION. 

Nevertheless, its methods and the historical ma- 
terial which it has accumulated have been turned 
to good service in the elucidation of the Scrip- 
tures. More scientific processes, a more accurate 
eye for reading history, and a better view of the 
relation of the divine and human elements of the 
Bible have been the incidental results. 

The history of the "Higher Criticism " is 
inseparably connected with that of Rationalism, 
m , . , of which it is, in its objectionable 

The history ' J _ 

" f fflher aspects, a product. To obtain a clear 
fnfepfrabiy idea of its origin, principles, and re- 
withthat d of suits, it is, therefore, necessary to 

Rationalism. g . ye & bHef ^^ of ^ ^^ q{ 

Rationalism. 

The term Rationalism is not of very recent 
date. It has been employed, for at least two cen- 
The term turies, to designate a skeptical type of 
Stofvery 31 thinking. In the beginning of the sev- 
recentdate. enteentu ce ntury the Aristotelian Hu- 
manists were called Rationalists ; and in 1688 the 
same epithet was applied to the Socinians by Co- 
menius. It was not imported into the English 
language from the German, either in a theolog- 
ical or a philosophical sense. Trench [ a Study of 
Words," p. 147] says : " There was a sect of Ra- 
tionalists in the time of the Commonwealth, who 
called themselves such exactly on the same 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 15 

grounds as those who in later times have chal- 
lenged the name. Thus, one writing the news 
from London, among other things, mentions : 
* There is a new sect sprung up among them [the 
Presbyterians and Independents], and these are 
the Rationalists, and what their reason dictates 
them, in Church or state, stands for good, unless 
they be convinced with better.' " 

Some have attempted to identify German Ra- 
tionalism with English Deism; but, , 

& ' * An attempt 

though they have a historical conncc- jjSSuSnn 
tion, yet they are separated by wide £eism English 
and marked differences. 

Deism consists in the elevation of Natural 
Religion to be the standard and rule of all posi- 
tive religion. Its fundamental prin- Distinction 
ciple is that reason is the source and |he m een 
measure of truth. It discards, as does (a) eism ' 
Rationalism, the miraculous in Christianity. " It 
has," in the words of Hagenbach ["German Ra- 
tionalism," p. 49.. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 
1865], " no substance, but a bare belief in God, 
and he, too, a distant God, a Deus, ' an unknown 
God/ as the Athenians called him when they 
erected an altar to him. This faith is sometimes 
called Naturalism, because its God is only known 
in the ordinary course of nature." He has made 
no book-revelation. The only revelation that 



1 6 INTR OD UCTION. 

the Deist admits is the light of reason ; and that 
is the test of religious truth. " Wahr ist, was Mar 
ist" — clearness is the criterion of truth — is the 
leading principle of his system. 

If the term Rationalism be used in its etymo- 
logical sense, as meaning a rational system of 
(&) Rational- religious doctrine, the most orthodox 
lsm * believer can not object to it; for the 

Christian religion, if true, must harmonize with 
reason. But that, though intended by the Ra- 
tionalists to be the meaning of the word, is 
not the meaning that it has among evangelical 
divines. The word has, when used theologically, 
a very different signification. 

" Those who are generally termed Rational- 
ists," says Dr. Bretschneider [quoted by Dr. 
Hurst in his " History of Rationalism," p. 14], 
" admit universally, in Christianity, a divine, be- 
nevolent, and positive appointment for the good 
of mankind, and Jesus as a messenger of divine 
Providence, believing that the true and everlast- 
ing word of God is contained in the Holy Scrip- 
ture, and that by the same the welfare of man- 
kind will be obtained and extended. But they 
deny therein a supernatural and miraculous work- 
ing of God, and consider the object of Christian- 
ity to be that of introducing into the world such 
a religion as reason can comprehend ; and they 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 17 

distinguish the essential from the unessential, and 
what is local and temporary from that which is 
universal and permanent in Christianity." 

Lecky [quoted by the same author, p. 23] 
says : " Rationalism is a system which would 
unite in one sublime synthesis all the past forms 
of human belief, which accepts with triumphant 
alacrity each new development of science, having 
no stereotyped standard to defend, and which 
represents the human mind as pursuing on the 
highest subjects a path of continual progress to- 
ward the fullest and most transcendent knowl- 
edge of the Deity. ... It clusters around 
a series of essentially Christian conceptions — 
equality, fraternity, the suppression of war, the 
elevation of the poor, the love of truth, and 
the diffusion of liberty. It revolves around the 
ideal of Christianity, and, represents its spirit 
without its dogmatic system and its supernatural 
narratives. From both of these it unhesitatingly 
recoils, while deriving all its strength and nourish- 
ment from Christian ethics." 

These statements — one from a man who was 
far from being evangelical, and the other from a 
decided rationalist— are sufficient to give an idea 
of the nature and object of Rationalism and to 
distinguish it from Deism. 

Both Roman Catholics and the Rationalists 



18 INTRODUCTION. 

themselves have considered Rationalism as a 
natural development of the Reformation. They 
Roman catii a ^ rm * na * the principle of free sub- 
tSnaSste Ra jectivity began its course in the Ref- 
erSfRaSon- ormation, and that it ends it in Ra- 
naturafle- tionalism. The Reformation delivered 
the°R?forma- the mind from the authority of the 
Church; Rationalism delivers it from 
that of the Bible. It is admitted that they agree 
in form, but not in essence. Subjectivity is prom- 
inent in both, as it is in Christianity itself. The 
Reformation was a protest of the spiritual nature 
of its advocates against merely human principles 
and traditions, in the name and by the authority 
of the Word of God. Rationalism, on the con- 
trary, is a protest against the Divine Word, in 
the name and by the authority of human reason. 
It is thus essentially the very opposite of Pro- 
testantism. Rationalism proceeds from 
form, but dif- the exclusive study of the world; the 

fer in essence. 

Reformation proceeds from the study 
of the Bible. The Reformation taught that we 
are saved by grace ; that the righteousness which 
avails with God, is a free gift from him, so that 
all honor belongs to him alone. It set forth and 
acknowledged, as the central truth of all divine 
revelation, the redemption of the world through 
Jesus Christ. Rationalism is a stranger to this 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 19 

fundamental religious experience. It started 
from opposite principles, and disputed the truths 
upon which evangelical experience rests. Ration- 
alism, therefore, is the very antithesis of the 
Reformation. 

The first movements of the rationalistic spirit 
appeared in Socinianism, in the age of the Ref- 
ormation itself. We shall, however, Thefirst 
omit any notice of its earlier manifes- S°RaiSonS- 
tations, together with its relation to Jfmongthe 

X11 . . i xx • i Socinians. 

llluminism and Humanism, and come 
down to the time of Semler, who is considered 
the father of the school of "destructive criticism." 
At this time the old polemic theology of the 
seventeenth century had become effete. Pietism, 
in whose interest the University of 

Pietism. 

Halle had been founded, dealt it a 
heavy blow. But Pietism was practical, not 
scientific, in its aim. It sought to promote an 
active, religious life ; and employed science only 
as a means of appropriating for its own use such 
material as was useful for edification. It was 
not wanting in a skillful and learned study of 
the Bible, for the purpose of edifying Christians 
individually and the Churches collectively, but 
it looked with distrust upon inquiries which had 
for their object the removal of doubts. 

Such inquiries could not be held in abeyance. 



20 INTE OD UCTION. 

They were excited and promoted by a variety of 
external causes. Among these causes may be 
Wolff En- mentioned, as the most operative, the 
IrSchlSfi- speculative philosophy of Wolff, the 
introduction into Germany of the 
works of English Deists, and the French Infidels 
at the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia. 

The mode in which the philosophy of Wolff 
ministered to Rationalism consisted in making 
dogmatic theology a part of metaphysical philos- 
ophy. The Scriptures were made to rest on phi- 
losophy, instead of co-ordinating them with it. 

The Deists and Infidels brought many charges 
against the Bible. They professed to find errors 
in it. The proofs of its divine origin were, in 
their opinion, weak. They demanded that these 
proofs should be subjected to a new investigation. 
They did not consider a doctrine true because it 
was found in the Bible, for they did not acknowl- 
edge the Bible as the test of truth. Its history, 
its formation, and the relations of its parts to the 
whole were subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. 
The scalpel was applied without mercy. The 
Bible was ruthlessly dissected, and its disjointed 
members were tossed about to celebrate the tri- 
umph of reason and philosophy. 

These influences and movements, together 
with a literary movement indicated by Lessing, 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 21 

and a deistical one embodied in the educational 
institutions of Basedow, were outside of the 
Church. But a movement was begun Lessing 
within the Church, which manifested Based ° w - 
itself in a tendency toward a historical and crit- 
ical study of the Scriptures. This method was 
followed by the eminent scholar, jurist, and theo- 
logian, Grotius ; and by Wctstein, professor of 
philosophy and Church history in the Grotius 
Remonstrant Gymnasium, at Amster- Wetstein - 
dam. These men were the forerunners of Er- 
nesti and Michaelis, the former of whom, at 
Leipzig, applied the grammatical and literary 
mode of interpretation, as opposed to the dog- 
matic formerly in use, to the New Testament; 
and the latter of whom, at Gbttingen, applied it 
to the Old. It is not just to call any of these 
men Rationalists, in the common accep- Erncsti 
tation of that term ; but Ernesti and Michaciis - 
Michaelis were surrounded by a skeptical atmos- 
phere whose influence they would naturally feel. 
Sender was the pupil of Ernesti, and Eichhorn 

of Michaelis, and these two men devel- 

, . _, . . Semler. 

oped the system ot their instructors 
into Rationalism. 

Joh. Salomo Semler, ordinary professor in 
Halle, was born in 1725 and died in 1791. He 
was a prolific writer, but his works have now 



22 INTR OB UCTION. 

little beyond a historical value as marking an 
epoch in the history of Biblical Science. He 
commenced his investigations with the Canon, 
and fearful havoc he made of most of the books 
that had been received by the Church as canon- 
ical. His test of the inspiration of a book was 
the inward conviction of his mind that what it 
conveyed to him was truth. His reason was the 
umpire. Following its guidance, he rejected the 
His views on b°°ks of Chronicles, Ruth, Ezra, Ne- 
tue canon. hemial ^ Esther, and the Song of Sol- 
omon. Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel, 
Kings, and Daniel were doubtful. The Proverbs 
may have been the production of a number of 
wise men. The Pentateuch, especially Genesis, 
he considered to be a mere collection of legend- 
ary fragments. The New Testament has some 
good things, which are not found in the Old ; but 
it contains other things which are injurious to 
the Church. The Apocalypse of John was the 
work of a wild fanatic. He considered the au- 
thenticity and integrity of the Gospels as very 
doubtful, with the exception of that of John, 
which, in his opinion, was the only one adapted 
to the present state of the world, since it is free 
from the Jewish spirit. The general epistles 
were written to unify contending parties that 
had arisen in the early Church. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 23 

But Semler's fame rests chiefly on his theory of 
accommodation. He was not the author of this 
theory, but he revived it and carried 

■ . His theory of 

it to such an extent as to alarm the accommoda- 
tion. 

friends of evangelical truth. Some of 
the early Fathers of the Church held it under, 
the names ao"fxardpaacz y or/ovo/ila, and dispensatio. 
Jahn asserts that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 
Tertullian, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Jerome 
extended it to formal dissimulation, fraud, and 
falsehood on the part of the sacred writers. It 
may be questioned, however, whether they went 
so far as to intend by it an adaptation of their 
doctrines to those to whom they preached or 
whom they instructed. They rather used it in 
reference to the mode of argumentation employed 
by the apostles, and to the accommodation of 
their practice to circumstances, in which no moral 
principle was involved. The Apostle Paul, they 
thought, employed the argumentum ad hominem, 
and became as a Jew to the Jews (1 Cor. ix, 20) ; 
but this differs very widely from accommodation 
in the matter of instruction. Every wise teacher 
accommodates the form of his teaching to tho 
capacities of his pupils or hearers; but no honest 
teacher would accommodate the matter of his 
teaching to their prejudices. This, however, in 
the opinion of Semler, Christ and his apostles 



24 INTR OD TJCTION. 

did. The Jews, he said, entertained many opin- 
ions which it would have been impolitic in Christ 
to have assaiied directly ; hence, he pretended to 
admit them, and restated them with an admix- 
ture of truth. This dissimulation was, in Sem- 
ler's view, a stroke of policy. In this way he 
reduced Christ's utterances concerning angels, the 
second coming of the Messiah, the last judgment, 
demons, the resurrection of the dead, and the 
inspiration of the Scriptures to so many accom- 
modations to prevailing errors. Christ came to 
restore the pure religion of nature, but to effect 
this gradually and prudently. He retained the 
existing elements of the Mosaic religion, sanction- 
ing the prevailing ideas of the people, though 
frequently erroneous, that he might insinuate 
among them his own views. Such a doctrine of 
accommodation is derogatory to Him " who did 
no sin and in whose mouth there was no guile." 
(1 Peter ii, 22.) It is derogatory to his holy 
apostles, who taught men to " abstain from all 
appearance [every form'] of evil." (1 Thess. v. 22.) 
In connection with his method of criticism, 
Semler draws a distinction, somewhat allied to 
his theory of accommodation, between the local, 
the temporary, and the permanent, the eternal in 
the Scriptures. He held that a large portion of 
the Bible is only ephemeral, and that it was 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 25 

never intended to be any thing else. Many things 
in the narratives of the sacred wri- Semler . s dlg . 
ters had a local interest to their con- {weenthe 6 
temporaries; but after the lapse of a temporary, 

n ,. -. , i and the pe'r- 

iew generations ceased to nave any manent, the 

i- i • i mi -i eternal. 

application to mankind, lney do not 
now meet the wants of the world, but are only 
the machinery of a past civilization. It is true 
that some portions of the Scriptures are local 
and temporary, yet they are parts of a complete 
revelation, and furnish lessons to the Church of 
every age. Without them the Scriptures would 
be incomplete. The early history of the world 
may have little interest to the great majority of 
its present inhabitants and very little application 
to their wants ; yet a knowledge of it is an im- 
portant element in the intellectual and moral 
culture of the human race. 

Eichhorn continued the exegetical method in- 
augurated by Semler. He deemed miracles im- 
possible, but did not regard them as 

7. mi • /.i Eichhorn. 

frauds. The narratives of them were 
merely Oriental modes of speech, such as hyper- 
bole or ellipsis, in which the steps by which the 
process was formed were omitted. The grand 
display on Mount Sinai, at the giving of the law, 
was a thunder-storm ; and the shining of Moses' 
face was a natural phenomenon. 



26 INTRODUCTION. 

Paulus, first at Jena, and subsequently at 
Heidelberg, explained the miraculous cures, men- 
„ , tioned in the New Testament, by an 

Paulus. . . 

omission of the mention of natural 
remedies. The casting out of devils was effected 
by the power of a wise man over the insane. 
The transfiguration was the confused recollection 
of sleeping men, who saw Jesus with two un- 
known friends among the mountains in the beau- 
tiful light of the morning. The resurrection of 
our Lord was explained by the hypothesis that 
his death was only apparent. 

These are a few specimens of the exegesis of 
the Rationalistic school which culminated in 
Paulus, and which has been called the school of 
the old or common-sense Rationalism. 

This form of Rationalism differs, as has been 
already intimated, from English Deism and 
French Naturalism, in not regarding the Bible 
as fabulous and the work of priestcraft. It only 
denied the supernatural character of the Scrip- 
tures. The English Deists and French Natural- 
ists regarded the apostles as impostors, and did 
not even respect the Scriptures as an ordinary 
historical record. Rationalism was intended as a 
defense against this view; it treated the Scrip- 
tures as ordinary history, but denied their super- 
natural character. It distinguished between the 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 27 

fact related and the judgment respecting the fact. 
It separated these two and explained away the 
supernatural element. The old Rationalism aimed 
at harmonizing Christianity with reason ; but the 
exegesis, which it employed for this purpose, was 
neither rational nor Christian. 

New influences were now introduced which 
modified the forms of theological and critical 
thought, and resulted in changing its Newlnflu . 
character. These influences have been lophicafiit, * 
denominated the philosophical, the lit- SafancUspir- 
erary, the political, and the spiritual. 
The first was found in the new systems of spec- 
ulative philosophy that arose out of the Kan- 
tian, viz., the systems of Jacobi, Fichte, Schell- 
ing, and Hegel. 

Immanuel Kant was born A. D., 1724, one 
year before Semler. He held that it is useless to 
suppose that we are able to lay liold 
of the truth by means of clear no- 
tions, and repudiated the maxim of Illuminism, 
"wahr ist, was Mar ist." He taught men to dis- 
trust the assertions of the theoretical reason and 
to seek for some firm point beyond it. This 
point he found in morality. 

Jacobi differed widely from Kant; but in 
their relation to the popular philos- 

Jacobi. 

ophy of their time they were fully 



28 INTRODUCTION. 

agreed. His philosophy has been called the 
"faith-pliilosophy" inasmuch as he taught that all 
our knowledge must rest ultimately upon faith and 
not upon reasoning. Faith was the firm point 
which Jacobi found beyond the theoretical reason. 
Fichte's special object was to construct a 
system in which the matter and form of all 
science should be deduced from one 

Fichte. . „ 

and the same principle, and thus to 
solve the problem of the relation of ideas to 
their objects, a problem on which had always 
turned the conflict between idealism and realism. 
He would thus give to philosophy the systematic 
unity, with the want of which the system of 
Kant had been reproached. 

Fichte deduced every thing from the subjec- 
tive as creating and containing all reality. Yet 
why may not the objective produce the subjective 
as well as the subjective the objective? No rea- 
son can be given. We can no more deduce the 
infinite from the finite than the finite from the 
infinite by any of the processes of reflection. In 
order to have complete science, therefore, we 
must find a principle in which both the finite 
and the infinite, the subjective and the objective, 
are originally united. This principle is the Abso- 
lute Identity of subject and object in cognition. 

So reasoned Schelling, according to whom, in 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 29 

the principle of absolute identity, knowing and 
being are one. The Absolute and its develop- 
ment constitute all reality. The Ab- 

J Schelling. 

solute is itself neither being nor know- 
ing, neither infinite nor finite, but the ground of 
both. A knowledge of the essences and forms 
of all things is attained by means of ideas of the 
Reason or Intuition. To be and to know are 
identical. 

Hegel, at first a disciple of Schelling, rejected 
the Intellectual Intuition of the latter as an un- 
warranted assumption, but' maintained 

. Hegel. 

its fundamental idea, namely, the unity 
of the subjective or ideal and the objective or 
real ; and this oneness is the absolute science, to 
which the mind rises as to its absolute truth, and 
is found in the truth that pure esse is pure concep- 
tion in itself ; and that pure conception alone is true 
esse. (Tennemann's " Manual of the History of 
Philosophy," pp. 400-450. London: Henry G. 
Bohn. 1852.) 

The literary influence was the " Romantic 
School," according to which the mystery of life 
lies in a God-given original life, in an Literary 
instinctively working genius of the mfluence - 
Ego — the Ego of Fichte, which is not the indi- 
vidual, but that which is common to all individ- 
uals — the universal personality. By Schelling 



30 INTR OD UCTION. 

this instinctively working genius of the Ego 
was called " intellectual intuition ;" by Schlegel, 
Tieck, and Novalis " poetry ;" and by Schleier- 
macher, " sense and taste for the infinite." 

The political influence was due to the spirit 
of national patriotism, which glowed with such 
Political intensity in the heart of Germany 

influences. when? j n jg^ ghe roge j n her might 

to drive out her proud and imperious invader, 
the first Napoleon. " In that moment of deep 
public suffering," says Farrar (" Critical History 
of Free Thought/' p. 240), "the poetry and piety 
of the human heart brought back the idea of God 
and a spirit of moral earnestness. The national 
patriotism, which still lives in the poetry of the 
time, expelled selfishness; sorrow impressed men 
with a sense of the vanity of material things, 
and made their hearts yearn after the immaterial, 
the spiritual, the immortal : the sense of terror 
threw them upon the God of battles. It was 
the age of Marathon and Salamis revived ; and 
the effect was not less wonderful." 

The fourth or spiritual influence began, or 
rather manifested itself, on the anniversary of 
Spiritual tne Reformation, in 1817, when Claus 
influence. Harms, an archdeacon in Kiel, added 
to the ninety-five theses of Luther ninety-five 
new ones, which recalled to the rationalistic and 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 31 

irreligious age the faith of the great Reformer. 
These theses produced a great agitation, and 
showed that religious interests had again become 
a power. "It was in vain," says Kahnis, "that 
the old Humanism in Halle sang, ' Strew roses 
on the way and forget Harms/ Harms's testi- 
mony did not become void. From a quarter 
altogether unexpected there appeared a fellow- 
combatant. Amnion defended Harms's theses in 
the pamphlet, " Eine bittere Arzenei fur die Glau- 
benschwdche der Zeit (a bitter medicine for the 
weak faith of the time)." 

These influences were productive of wide and 
important results. The second half of the last 
and the beginning of the present century formed 
a transition period from a lifeless orthodoxy to 
a new era in theology and religion. It was a 
dreary period in the history of the Protestant 
Church. Rationalism, on its critical side, had 
attempted to eliminate the miraculous element 
from the Bible ; on its dogmatic side, it oscil- 
lated between natural morality and Socinianism. 
This was the old deistic Rationalism. 

Now a new order of things arose. The gifted 
Schleiermacher, one of the most celebrated names 
in the history of German Protestant- Schleier . 
ism, appears on the scene. He inner- macher. 
ited from the Moravians, among whom he had. 



32 INTRODUCTION. 

received his early education, the spirit of pietism, 
and drew his philosophy largely from Jacobi. 
Though he sympathized with every department 
of the intellectual movement of his time, yet his 
love for Christianity fitted him to become the 
leader of a new reformation. He attempted the 
reconciliation of knowledge and faith, and thus 
founded a school which has been called, from its 
aim, the Mediation School. This school has on 
its roll names of the highest celebrity, such as 
Neander, Tholuck, Olshausen, Twesten, Nitzsch, 
Miiller, Dorner, and Ullmann, and typifies the 
philosophical and more orthodox side of the new 
movement. 

De Wette may be considered as the most im- 
portant name representing the critical movement. 
De Wette was educated at Jena, under 

De Wette. 

the influence of the old Rationalism; 
and his early intercourse with Herder, Gries- 
bach, and Paulus exercised a powerful influence 
on his mind. So also did the philosophy of 
Fries, who modified the doctrines of Kant and 
Jacobi. (Tennemann's " Manual of the History of 
Philosophy," pp. 467, 468.) It was through the 
influence of this philosophy that he was pre- 
served from the coldness of the older criticism, 
and that he was brought into a reactive position 
in relation to it. The peculiarity of the school, 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 33 

of which he may be said to have been the founder, 
was the investigation of the Bible for the sake 
of its literature, and not for the purpose of dis- 
covering doctrine. " Like the older Rationalists/' 
the critics of this school " are occupied largely 
with Biblical interpretation ; but, perceiving the 
hollowness of their attempt to explain away moral 
and spiritual mysteries by reference to material 
events, they transfer to the Bible the theories 
used in the contemporary investigations in class- 
ical history, and explain the Biblical wonders by 
the hypothesis of legends or of myths. Though 
they ignore the miraculous and supernatural 
equally with the older Rationalists, they admit 
the spiritual in addition to the moral and natural, 
and thus take a more scholarlike and elevated 
view of human history." (Farrar's " Critical His- 
tory of Free Thought." Lecture VI., p. 253.) 

To this critical school belong Hare, who was 
also influenced by the philosophy of Fries, Ge- 
senius, Knobel, Hirzel, Hitzig, Credner, Tuch, 
Stahelin, and perhaps Ewald, whose originality 
may exempt him from classification. 

The system of interpretation adopted by this 
school forms the transition between the deistic 
Rationalism, that preceded it, and the 

r 7 Strauss. 

system of Strauss. The old Rational- 
ism of Paulus admitted the facts, but explained 

3 



34 



INTRODUCTION. 



them away : Strauss denied the facts, and ac- 
counted for the belief in them by psychological 
causes. His interpretation of the Scriptures is 
styled the " Mythical Theory." 

Strauss passed through several shades of opin- 
ion, beginning with the Romantic School and 
ending in Hegelianism. He belonged to the Left 
Section of the Hegelian School. It was this 
philosophy that furnished him with the construc- 
tive side of his work. Setting out with the pre- 
conception that " the idea is more important than 
the fact," that the fact is the mere clothing of 
the idea, he applied it to the interpretation of 
history, and regarded the Gospel history as an 
attempt of certain ideas to realize themselves in 
fact. The Gospels were partly a creation out of 
nothing and partly an adaptation of real facts to 
preconceived ideas. Such a theory destroys, of 
course, the historical foundation of Christianity. 

The controversy occasioned by Strauss's " Life 

of Jesus" led Ferdinand Christian Baur, the 

head of the Tubingen School, to in- 

Tubingen . J=> ' 

school. vestigate the New Testament. He ar- 
rived at the following results, namely : 
that the genuine epistles of Paul are the four 
principal ones, Romans, Corinthians, and Gala- 
tians ; that the most of the other New Testament 
writings, especially the Gospel of John, are to be 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 35 

brought down to an advanced period in the sec- 
ond century; that the latter is not a historical, 
but a dogmatic, writing; that primitive Christi- 
anity, making Ebiouism its starting-point, devel- 
oped through the opposition of the latter and 
Paulinism, until through accomodation of the 
opposition, Catholic Christianity was formed, and 
that to this accommodation the great number of 
our New Testament writings belong. (Immer's 
Hermeneutics, p. 75. Andover : Warren F. Dra- 
per. 1877.) It is very common in Germany to 
describe the criticism of this school by the term 
" tendenziose " [tendency criticism~\, as its aim is to 
establish the hypothesis that the New Testament 
writings arose out of conflicting tendencies in the 
early Church and efforts to reconcile contending 
factions. According to Baur, " Christianity is 
not a perfect and divine production, but only a 
vital force in process of development." From 
an orthodox point of view, the effect of this 
school is destructive ; but viewed in reference to 
" the mythical theory " of Strauss, it clings to 
the historic side of Christianity. Both alike, 
however, subvert its divine foundation. Both 
are permeated by the Hegelian spirit. 

Since 1848, new influences have been at 
work, political and philosophical, the bare men- 
tion of which must suffice. The result has 



36 



INTRODUCTION. 



been the rise of a reactionary Lutheran party, 
which professes to return to the old Lutheran 
^ . ^ symbols of the time of the Eeforma- 

New mflu- J 

S s since tion# Tnis nas ^ een calle( ^ " Neo-Lu- 
theranism f and the term " Hyper- 
Lutheranism" has been applied to its High 
Church position. The "Mediation School" of 
Schleiermacher has assumed a newer form, modi- 
fied by Hegelianism in Dorner; and the Tubin- 
gen School has been very much modified by Dr. 
Dittenberger, C. Schwarz, Schweizer, and others, 
who may rather be said to have formed another 
school derived from it and that of De Wette. 

This brief historical outline of the Higher 
Criticism has been confined to Germany, the land 
of its birth and of its greatest achievements. Its 
principles are not, however, limited to Germany. 
They find their advocates in France, Holland, 
Great Britain, and the United States. The Free 
Church of Scotland has recently been agitated 
by them ; and it has removed from one of its 
theological chairs a man who is considered one 
of the best exponents of them. It is thought 
that many sympathize with him, but hesitate to 
declare themselves openly. The fearful are look- 
ing anxiously for the result. Those who have 
confidence in the truth, look on calmly, assured 
that it will triumph. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 37 

" Truth crushed to earth will rise again, 
The eternal years of God are hers; 
But error, wounded, writhes in pain, 
And dies amid her worshipers." 

The leading principle of the " Higher Crit- 
icism " is subjective, and is thus form- Leading prin- 

. 1 . T-fc ■»% ■ l et t r> • ci P le 0f the 

ulated by Dr. Davidson: If scien- "Higher 

J Criticism" 

tific theology detect the groundless- subjective. 
ness of external evidences, the latter must give 
way." 

This principle characterizes all the stages of 
the so-called " Higher Criticism." First, under 
the old critical Rationalism, it denied 

-. -. , ■,..-. Influence of 

the supernatural, and hence eliminated tins prm- 

. ciple. 

miracle and prophecy from the Bible. 
Under Hegelian ism or philosophical Rationalism 
it required adhesion to a subjective philosophical 
system. In the present time it rejects what it 
considers contradictory, and endeavors to recon- 
struct what to it seems a coherent narrative. 
Under its guidance, the exegete assumes as true 
certain principles which it deems fundamental, 
but which have never been acknowledged as such 
by exegetes generally. He sees contradiction 
and confusion where others of equal sagacity and 
penetration see agreement and order. 

Before concluding these introductory remarks, 



38 INTRODUCTION. 

the writer deems it proper to allude to a law 

of critical procedure remorselessly enforced on 

others by the disciples of the Higher Criticism ; 

but very generally neglected by them- 

Conclusion. T . i i i 

selves. It is that we should set out, 
in our critical investigations, without presuppo- 
sitions or preconceived opinions. In the words 
of Neander ("Life of Christ," Introduction), "to 
comply with it is impracticable ; the very at- 
tempt contradicts the sacred laws of our being. 
We can not entirely free ourselves from presup- 
positions, which are born with our nature, and 
which attach to the fixed course of progress in 
which we ourselves are involved. They control 
our consciousness, whether we will or no; and 
the supposed freedom from them is, in fact, noth- 
ing else but the exchange of one set for another," 
In fact, such a state of mind is impossible, except 
in the case of idiots; and were it possible, it is 
difficult to see what advantage it would afford. 
Every mind has a bias in one direction in pref- 
erence to another. Professors of astronomy be- 
lieve in the Copernican system ; but that belief 
does not vitiate their demonstration of it. Pro- 
fessors of theology believe in the existence of 
God, but that belief does not invalidate the 
proofs of that existence given to their classes. 



THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 39 

It is enough that we exclude, as far as possible, 
the influence of bias and prejudice; that we judge 
calmly and dispassionately according to the evi- 
dence. One may hold the doctrine of the ple- 
nary inspiration of the Scriptures, and yet pros- 
ecute critical studies with fairness. One may 
admit that miracles are historically true, and yet 
fulfill all the conditions and qualifications required 
in a good exegete, so far as the demands of the 
critical process are concerned. We may hold 
these doctrines provisionally in abeyance during 
the process of critical investigation, so that our 
inquiries may be independent of our creeds and 
beliefs. It is possible that the results may con- 
flict with these creeds and beliefs ; and then, as 
honest men, we must modify or relinquish them. 
But it is certainly both unfair and uncritical to 
set out, as did the old Rationalism, with the 
denial of the supernatural ; to take for granted, 
with Kuenen, that the religion of the Israelites 
was not of divine origin, exceptional in the his- 
tory of religion ; but that it was merely a nat- 
ural evolution. This is assuming what ought 
to be proved. To reject the supernatural a priori 
and assume that accounts of miracles must be 
legendary is to beg the question at issue. The 
extreme orthodox traditionists can not go be- 



40 INTR OD UCTION. 

yond, with their so-called uncritical methods, 
such absurd and unscientific treatment of the 
Holy Scriptures. 

Books of Reference F Hurst's History of Rationalism ; 
Hagenbach's German Rationalism ; Kahnis's History of 
German Protestantism. Farrar's Critical History of Free 
Thought; Tennemann's Manual of the History of Phi- 
losophy. 



Part I. 

.Au.ttiorship and Composition 

OF THE 

PENTATEUCH. 



Part I. 



CHAPTER I. 

THEORIES OF THE COMPOSITION AND AUTHOR- 
SHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH 

Most English readers suppose the five books 
of the Bible commonly called the Pentateuch to 
have been written by Moses. They except, of 
course, the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which 
records the death of that great lawgiver and 
prophet, together with some other portions, which 
must have been added by a later hand. This 
was the belief of the Jews and of the Samaritans. 

The Christian Church has held the same be- 
lief; and, in support of it, it adduces not only 
the authority of the Jews, but also the testimony 
of Christ and his apostles. 

It is fair to state that, in the first century of our 
era, a different opinion was held -by some small 
parties in the Church, principally Gnostics, who 
were opponents of Judaism and the Jewish law. 

In the second century, Ptolemaeus made a di- 
vision of the contents of the Pentateuch, assign- 



44 THE PENT A TE VCR. 

ing a portion of it to divine revelation, another 
portion to Moses alone, and another to the 

ptoiemaeus e ^ ers °f tne people. The Nazarenes 
Nazarenes. affirmed that it was fictitious, and re- 

Clementine > 

Bog^ii! jected it. The Clementine Homilies 
^assert that Moses' object was to prop- 
agate the primitive religion verbally, and that he 
communicated the law containing it to seventy 
wise men, who, after his death, and contrary to 
his design, committed it to writing. This, ac- 
cording to them, was the origin of the Penta- 
teuch. The Bogomili, a sect in the twelfth cen- 
tury, rejected the Mosaic writings; but it is not 
said that they questioned the Mosaic authorship. 
Among the Jewish scholars of the middle 
ages, Isaak ben Jasos and Aben-Esra expressed 
their doubt whether the whole Penta- 
sos'and teuch was written by Moses; but they 

Aben-Esra. . ' . * 

did not deny its authorship in general 
by him. 

These opinions, with the exception of those 
of Isaak ben Jasos and Aben-Esra, seem to have 
been founded upon dogmatic rather than upon 
critical considerations; and as they proceeded 
mostly from theosophic ascetic tendencies, they 
have no value. 

In modern times, the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch has been assailed by men of emi- 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHOItSHIP. 45 

nent ability, learning, and great critical acumen. 
Carlstadt, at the time of the Reformation, in his 
treatise on the Canonical Scriptures, 

_ . . . __ , , , Carlstadt. 

denied that Moses was the author, and 
assigned as a reason the narrative of his death at 
the end of Deuteronomy, which no one in his 
senses, according to Carlstadt, would attribute to 
Moses as the author. 

Andreas Masius, a Roman Catholic and a 
lawyer, born in the neighborhood of Brussels 
(died 1573 at Cleves), declared in the Andreas 
preface to his " Commentary on the Masms - 
Book of Joshua," that the Pentateuch, in the 
form in which it has been transmitted to us, was 
not the work of Moses, but of Ezra, or of some 
other inspired man. 

Hobbes, in his " Leviathan " (1651), expressed 
the opinion that the Pentateuch seems 

ii • Tir Hobbes. 

to have been written concerning Moses 

rather than by Moses [Videtur Pentateuchus po- 

tius de Mose quam a Mose Scriptus.] 

Isaak Peyrerius, a French Protestant divine, 
who subsequently went over to the Roman Cath- 
olic Church (died 1676), gave it as his Isaak 
opinion, in his work entitled, " Sys- p J" renus - 
tema Theologicum ex prse-Adamitorum Hypoth- 
esi," 1655, that Moses composed memoranda of 
the Exodus from Egypt, of the journeyings in 
the Wilderness, and of the giving of the Law 



46 THE PENTATEUCH. 

from Mt. Sinai, to which he prefixed a history of 
the former times. These autographs of Moses, 
according to Peyrerius, were lost : the books of 
the Pentateuch were abstracts of them composed 
at a much later date, and not even immediately 
derived from them. 

Spinoza, who was expelled from the synagogue 

on the charge of Atheism, endeavored, in his 

"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," 1670, 

Spinoza. ° 

to establish the doubts as to the Mo- 
saic authorship of the Pentateuch, by means of 
various passages in it, as well as by the phenom- 
ena throughout the whole work, particularly Mo- 
ses' use of the third person. He propounded 
the view that the Pentateuch, and likewise the 
other historical books of the Old Testament, in 
their present arrangement, were composed by 
Ezra; that he wrote Deuteronomy first, then the 
other four books and appended the former to 
them. 

In 1678 appeared Richard Simon's "Critical 
History of the Old Testament," which attributes 
Richard ^° Moses the literary authorship of the 

Simon. j jQW . j^ intimates the opinion that 

Moses employed official annalists, whom he ap- 
pointed, after the custom of the Egyptians, to 
write the history of his time ; and that the Pen- 
tateuch was compiled in a somewhat confused 
manner from the various writings of these annal- 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 47 

ists working without connection with each other, 
and joined with the Mosaic book of the Law. 

Clericus (1685) broached the opinion that the 
existing Pentateuch was the work of Israelitish 
priests, who had been sent back from 

# Clericus. 

Babylon by the Assyrian kings, after 
the captivity of the ten tribes, in order to teach 
the worship of Jehovah to the new colonists 
(2 Kings xvii, 24-28) ; but he afterward retracted 
this opinion, and claimed the authorship of the 
whole Pentateuch for Moses, with the exception 
of a few passages inserted later by interpolation. 
Yitringa (1707) propounded the view that 
Moses employed, in writing the book of Genesis, 
sketches written by the patriarchs, and 

-. • n i • • Vitringa. 

sought a foundation for this conjecture 
in the titles, " These are the generations of," etc. 
No special interest, however, was attached to this 
question until after the middle of the last cen- 
tury, when more attention was given to what had 
been already said about the change, in different 
sections, of the names for God — Elohim and Je- 
hovah, 

This brings us to what is called the documen- 
tary theory. 

The Documentary Hypothesis rests on the 
alternate use of the divine names, Elo- 
him and Jehovah. The exclusive use tary 

n „ Al ,. . . Hypothesis. 

oi one oi these divine names in some 



48 THE PENTATEUCH. 

sections, and of the other in other sections, im- 
plies, it is said, two different authors. The 
Pentateuch, therefore, it is affirmed, is composed 
of two different documents, the one Elohistic, 
the other Jehovistic, and consequently it was not 
written by Moses. 

At first this theory was limited to the book 
of Genesis ; then it was made to include Exodus 
to chapter vi ; afterward it was applied to the 
whole Pentateuch and to other portions of 
Scripture. 

The first who laid any particular stress on 
the documentary theory was J. Astruc, 

Astruc. 

a French physician, a doctor, and pro- 
fessor of medicine in Paris, who died in 1766. 

Astruc, in a work on the original documents 
used by Moses in composing the book of Genesis, 
published in Brussels, in 1753, assumed the ex- 
istence of two chief written sources, an Elohim- 
document and a Jehovah-document ; and was of the 
opinion that their elements pervade the whole 
book of Genesis. Together with these two docu- 
ments, he was of the opinion that there were ten 
others, separate fragments of which were intro- 
duced into Genesis, and that from these twelve 
documents Moses composed the whole of that 
book. Moses, according to Astruc, wrote the 
book originally in twelve columns ; but these 
columns were afterward written continuously, 



COMPOSITION AND A UT&ORSHIP. 49 

one after another ; and, by the fault of transcrib- 
ers, certain matter got into the wrong places. 

Astruc was followed by several German wri- 
ters : by Jerusalem in his " Letters on the Mo- 
saic Writings and Philosophy;" by Jerusalera . 
Schultens, in his " Dissertatio qua dis- ?{^n! tens " 
quiritur, wide Moses res in libro Gene- 
sos descriptas didicerit;" 1 and by Ilgen, with con- 
siderable learning and critical acumen, in his 
" Urkunden der Jerusalemischen Tempel-Archivs " 
(Ier Theil, Halle, 1798) ; 2 and by Eichhorn (Ein- 
leitung in d. A. T.). Ilgen supposed that there 
were seventeen documents and three authors, one 
Jehovist and two Elohists. 

This documentary theory, as it has been called, 
was too conservative for some critics, and they 
adopted the theory known as the fragmentary 
hypothesis. 

Vater (Comm. ub. den Pentateuch, 1815), 3 and 
A. T. Hartmann (Linguist. Mini, in d. stud, der 
B'ueher des A. Test, 1818), 4 maintained Fragmentaxy 
that the Pentateuch consisted merely vater^ 68 * 8 ' 
of a number of fragments loosely Hartmann - 
strung together without order or design. Vater 

1 A Dissertation on the Question whence Moses learned, the Facts 
related in the Pentateuch. 

2 Documents of the Jerusalem Temple Archives. First Part 
Halle. 1798. 

3 Commentary on the Pentateuch. 1815. 

4 Linguistic Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Old 
Testament. 

4 



50 THE PENT A TE UCE. 

supposed that a collection of laws made in the 
times of David and Solomon was the foundation 
of the whole ; that this was the book discovered 
in the reign of Josiah ; and that its fragments 
were afterward incorporated in Deuteronomy. 
All the rest, consisting of fragments of history 
and of laws written at different periods up to 
this time, were, according to him, collected and 
shaped into their present form between the times 
of Josiah and the Babylonish exile. Hartmann, 
also, brings down the date of the existing Penta- 
teuch as late as the exile. 

Both these hypotheses — the documentary and 

the fragmentary — were assailed, and an attempt 

was made to establish the unity of the Pentateuch 

by pointing out its plan and single 

Supplemen- . , . . 

tary aim and snowing the internal connec- 

Hypothesis. 

tion of all its part with that plan and 
aim. In consequence of this, the fragmentary 
hypothesis was abandoned, and the documentary 
was transformed into the supplementary. This 
hypothesis acknowledges a unity of plan in the 
book, though it does not admit that this unity 
existed there from the beginning ; and it supposes 
that the Pentateuch originated by working up 
interpolations and supplements into the funda- 
mental document; and it attempts to determine 
these twofold elements in the individual instances. 






COMPOSITION AND A UTH0RSH1P. 51 

This hypothesis has been adopted, with various 
modifications, by De Wette, Bleek, Stahelin, Tuch, 
Langerke, Hupfeld, Knobel, Bunsen, Kurtz, De- 
litzsch, Schultz, Vaihinger, and others. They all 
alike recognize two documents in the Pentateuch, 
and suppose that the narrative of the Elohist, 
the more ancient writer, was the foundation of 
the work; and that the Jehovist or later writer, 
making use of this narrative, added to and com- 
mented upon it, sometimes transcribing portions 
of it intact and sometimes incorporating the sub- 
stance of it into his own work. 

Though these authors agree in the main, yet 
they differ widely in the application of their the- 
ory. De Wette, for example, distin- 

• i i i -tai x_s * i ■» De Wette. 

guishes between the Elohist and Je- 
hovist in the first four books, and attributes 
Deuteronomy to a different writer altogether. 

Langerke does the same, with some difference 
of detail in the portions that he as- 

,. Langerke. 

signs to the two editors. He places 

the Elohist in the time of Solomon and the Je- 

hovistic editor in that of Hezekiah. 

Tuch puts the first under Saul, and 

i i i « i Tuch - 

the second under Solomon. 

Stahelin declares for the identity of the Deu- 

teronomist and the Jehovist: and sup- 

... Stahelin. 

poses the last to have written in the 



52 THE PENTATEUCH. 

reign of Saul, and the Elohist in the time of the 
Judges. 

Hupfeld finds, in Genesis at least, traces of 

three authors, an earlier and a later Elohist and 

a Jehovist. He regards the Jehovistic 

Hupfeld. . b 

portion as an altogether original docu- 
ment, written in entire independence and without 
the knowledge of the Elohistic record. A later 
editor or compiler, he thinks, found the two 
books, and threw them into one. 

Vaihinger is also of opinion that portions of 
three original documents are to be found in the 

first four books, to which he adds some 

Vaihinger. * . 

fragments of the thirty-second and the 
thirty-fourth chapters of Deuteronomy. This 
book, according to him, is by a different and 
much later writer. He supposes that the Pre- 
elohist lived about 1200 B. C, the Elohist some 
two hundred years later, the Jehovist in the first 
half of the eighth century B. C, and the Deuter- 
onomist in the reign of Hezekiah. 

Delitzsch agrees with the writers above-men- 
tioned in recognizing two distinct documents as 
the basis of the Pentateuch, especially 

Delitzsch. . . . i v <v. 

in its earlier portions ; but he diners 
from them in maintaining that Deuteronomy is 
the work of Moses. The kernel, or first found- 
ation of the Pentateuch, according to Delitzsch, 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 53 

is to be found in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 
xix-xxiv), which was written by Moses himself, 
and afterward incorporated into the body of the 
Pentateuch, where it at present stands. The rest 
of the laws given in the wilderness till the peo- 
ple reached the plains of Moab, were communi- 
cated orally by Moses and taken down by the 
priests, whose business it was to provide thus for 
their preservation. (Deut. xvii, 11 ; comp. xxiv, 8; 
xxxiii, 10; Lev, x. 11.) We are not obliged to 
assume that the proper codification of the law 
took place during the forty years' wandering in 
the desert, inasmuch as Deuteronomy does not 
presuppose the existence in writing of the entire 
earlier legislation ; but, on the contrary, recapit- 
ulates it with the greatest freedom. The codifi- 
cation was made shortly after the occupation of 
the land of Canaan. In that country the first 
definite portion of the history of Israel was writ- 
ten ; and the writing of the history necessitated a 
full and complete account of the Mosaic legisla- 
tion. A man, such as Eleazar, the son of Aaron, 
the priest (Num. xxvi, 1 ; xxxi, 21), wrote this 
history, beginning with the first words of Gene- 
sis, including in it the Book of the Covenant, 
and perhaps gave only a short notice of the last 
discourses of Moses, because Moses had written 
them down with his own hand. Another — who 



54 THE PENTATEUCH. 

may have been Joshua (see especially Deut. xxxii, 
44; Josh, xxiv, 26; compare, on the other hand, 
1 Sam x, 25), who was a prophet, and spoke as a 
prophet, or one of the elders on whom Moses' 
spirit rested (Num. xi, 25), many of whom sur- 
vived Joshua (Josh, xxiv, SI) — completed the 
work, taking Deuteronomy, which Moses had 
written, for his model, and incorporating it into 
his own book. In some such manner as this 
originated the Torah, or Pentateuch, each nar- 
rator further availing himself, when he thought 
proper, of other written documents. 

Kurtz agrees substantially with De- 
Kurtz. ° J 

litzsch. He arrives at the following 

conclusions : 

1. "It is probable that Moses composed and 
committed to writing with his own hand simply 
those portions of the Pentateuch which are ex- 
pressly attributed to him. 

2. " The groups of laws in the central books, 
of whose authorship no express statement is 
made, must have been written down by the direc- 
tion of Moses and under his supervision before 
the addresses in Deuteronomy were delivered and 
immediately after they emanated from the mouth 
of Moses. 

3. " The last revision of the Pentateuch, and 
its reduction into the form in which it has come 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 55 

down to us, took place in the latter portion of 
the life of Joshua, or very shortly after his death. 
In the historical portions of the Pentateuch we 
must admit the existence of two distinct sources, 
which may be described as the ground-work 
(Grundschrift) and the supplementary work (Er- 
ganzungschrift), Whether the ground-work con- 
sisted originally of historical matter only, or con- 
tained from the very outset the groups of laws 
in the central books; whether it was written by 
the author who compiled the central groups of 
laws or not — these, and other questions of a sim- 
ilar character, we are utterly unable to deter- 
mine." (" History of the Old Covenant," Vol. 
Ill, p. 444. Second Edition, Edinburgh, 1872.) 

Ewald distinguished seven different authors 
in " The Great Book of Origins," or Primitive 
History, comprising the Pentateuch 

J i to ^ Ewald. 

and Joshua. The oldest historical 
work, of which but a very few fragments remain, 
is the Book of the Wars of Jahveh [Jehovah]. 
Then follows a biography of Moses, of which, 
also, but small portions have been preserved. 
The third and fourth documents, consisting of 
the Book of the Covenant, written in the time 
of Samson, and of the Book of Origins, w T ritten 
by a priest in the time of Solomon, are much 
more perfect. In the fifth place comes the third 



56 THE PENTATEUCH. 

historian of the primitive times, or the first pro- 
phetic narrator, a subject of the northern king- 
dom in the days of Elijah or Joel. The sixth 
document is the fourth historian of primitive 
times, or the second prophetic narrator, who lived 
between 800 B. C. and 750 B. C. The fifth his- 
torian, or third prophetic narrator, flourished not 
long after Joel, and collected and reduced into 
one body the various works of his predecessors. 
The real purpose of the history, both in its pro- 
phetical and legal aspects, began now to be dis- 
cerned. Some steps in this direction were taken 
by an unknown writer at the beginning of the 
seventh century B. C, and then in a more com- 
prehensive manner by the Deuteronomist, who 
flourished in the time of Manasseh, and lived in 
Egypt. In the time of Jeremiah appeared the 
poet, who wrote the Blessing of Moses as it is 
given in Deuteronomy. An editor, somewhat 
later, incorporated the originally independent 
work of the Deuteronomist, and the lesser addi- 
tions of his two colleagues, with the history as 
left by the fifth narrator, and thus the whole was 
finally completed. 

Some eminent Biblical scholars in England 
have adopted substantially the same views as 
some of those that have been described concern- 
ing the authorship of the Pentateuch. 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 57 

Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his " Introduction to 
the Old Testament," Vol. I, pp. 58-61, Dr g amuel 
assigns the composition of it to four Davidson - 
authors, the Elohist, the younger Elohist, the 
Jehovist, and the Redactor. 

Bishop Colenso holds the opinion that there 
were three authors, the Elohist, the Jehovist, and 
the Deuteronomist. He is very exact Colenso# 
in assigning to each his portion, some- 
times dividing even verses. By internal evi- 
dence he has ascertained that out of 1,533 verses 
of the book of Genesis, 1,150 were written by 
the Jehovist (about 1040-1000 B. C), 333 by the 
Elohist (1080-1060 B. C), 47 by the Deuterono- 
mist (640 B.C.), and three by one of a number 
of laler Legislationist writers, in the interest of 
the priests (about 450 B. C). Out of the 1,213 
verses of the book of Exodus, 510 were written 
by the Jehovist, 14J by the Elohist, 86 by the 
Deuteronomist, and 602 J by some of the later 
Legislationists (between 600 B. C. and 450 B. C). 
Of the 859 verses of the book of Leviticus, all 
were written by the later Legislationists. Out 
of 1,288 verses of the book of Numbers, 274 
were written by the Jehovist, six by the Deu- 
teronomist, and 1,008 by the later Legislation- 
ists. Out of the 959 verses of Deuteronomy, 
7J were written by the Jehovist, 931 by 



58 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

the Deuteronomist, and 20J by a later Legis- 
lationist. 

It is doubtful whether the history of Criti- 
cism can furnish an example of a critical scent 
so keen as that of Bishop Colenso. To chase 
the Elohist into the middle of a verse and there 
discover a new scent is certainly an unrivaled 
feat of critical sagacity. 

One of the latest phases of the Pentateuch 
Criticism, though not entirely new, is presented 
in a work entitled, " The Keligion of Israel," 
written by Dr. A. Kuenen, professor 
in the University of Leyden, Holland, 
and in the writings of Julius Wellhausen, pro- 
fessor at Greifswald. The views of these writers 
were suggested, in 1835, by George, Yon Bohlen, 
and "Vatke; but at that time they met with no 
favor. They were repudiated by De Wette and 
Hupfeld, who considered them devoid of truth. 
These eminent critics treated them as though 
they were the hallucinations of a diseased brain. 

Professor Kuenen examined the Israelitish 
from the same point of view as Buddhism, Islam, 
and other religions of the human family. It is 
one of the principal religions of mankind, and 
nothing more. It is not of divine origin, but 
the result of natural development. The Israelites 
passed through various stages from the lowest 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 59 

forms of religion to monotheism. Their historical 
records, before the times of the prophets, or about 
the middle of the eighth century before Christ, are 
a mass of unreliable tradition. The prophets are 
the only reliable sources of information. The 
patriarchs are not historical personages. Moses 
may have been the author of the commandments, 
but it is probable that they came from him in a 
different form from the present. The twelve 
tribes were not the descendants of the twelve 
sons of Israel, but were formed by an admixture 
of neighboring nations. The twelve patriarchs 
were an invention of later times to account for 
the existence of the names of the twelve tribes. 
The oldest collection of laws is the Book of the 
Covenant, Exodus xxi-xxiii. Deuteronomy was 
writen about 625 B. C. Its author was probably 
Hilkiah, who wrote it as a reform programme. 
Leviticus xviii-xxvi was composed by Ezekiel, 
the latter part of whose prophecy forms the con- 
necting link between Deuteronomy and the mid- 
dle books of the Pentateuch — Exodus, Leviticus, 
and Numbers. These form a programme repre- 
senting the wishes of the priestly party and the 
scribes, a programme probably planned by Ezra. 
This programme succeeded. Before the growing 
legal tendency the prophet's voice became silent, 
and the many ceremonial observances so minutely 



60 THE PENTATEUCH. 

described in the Pentateuch bore their legitimate 
fruit in the refined subtilties of the Mishna. 
Finally, the whole regal history was re-written 
by the chronicler, long after Ezra, to illustrate 
the working of this legislation ; and thus the 
priestly legislation (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) 
obtained, by means of a pious fraud, historical 
support. 

W. R. Smith, LL. D., formerly professor in 
the Free Church College, Aberdeen, Scotland, in 
prof w. r. n ^ s article " Bible," in the new edition 
smith. Q f t | ie fi nG y C l p CEC li a Britannica* arrives 

at substantially the same results. He holds that 
Deuteronomy is post-Mosaic ; that it was com- 
posed in the reign of Josiah ; that the chronol- 
ogy of the composition of the Pentateuch may be 
said to center in the question, whether the Levit- 
ico-Elohistic document, which embraces most of 
the laws in Leviticus with large parts of Exodus 
and Numbers, is earlier or later than Deuteron- 
omy; that the laws of the Levitico-Elohistic 
document give a graduated hierarchy of priests 
and Levites, whereas Deuteronomy regards all 
Levites as, at least, possible priests; that before 
the exile the strict hierarchical law, with the two 
grades of priests and Levites, apparently never 
had been in force; that the hierarchical theory 
was fully carried out only after Ezra ; that, if so, 






COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 61 

the Levitical element is the latest thing in the 
Pentateuch ; that all the more elaborate symbolic 
observances of the ritual law are bound up with 
the hierarchical ordinances ; that the priests pub- 
lished their ordinances mainly by oral decisions ; 
that they, no doubt, possessed written legal col- 
lections of priestly ordinances from the time of 
Moses downward; that legal provisions, which 
the prophets and their priestly allies felt to be 
necessary for the maintenance of the truth, were 
often embodied in legislative programmes, by 
which previous legal tradition was greatly modi- 
fied; that the only vocation which, in the time 
of Ezra, remained for the community that gath- 
ered in the new Jerusalem was to obey the law 
of Jehovah, and patiently to await the coming 
Deliverer; that Ezra and Nehemiah, recognizing 
this vocation, established reformed institutions of 
a permanent kind ; that the spirit of prophecy, 
long decadent, expired with Malachi, the younger 
contemporary of Nehemiah ; that the whole con- 
cern of the nation, from this time downwards, 
was simply to preserve the sacred inheritance of 
the past ; that the founders of the new theocracy 
regarded the books that had upheld the exiles' 
faith, when all outward ordinances of religion 
were lacking, as also the fittest teachers of the 
restored community; that Ezra came to Jerusa- 



62 THE PENTATEUCH. 

lem armed, not with a fresh message from the 
Lord, but with the Book of the Law of Moses ; 
that this law-book was the Pentateuch ; and that 
the public recognition of it as the rule of the 
theocracy was the declaration that the religious 
ordinances of Israel had ceased to admit of de- 
velopment. 

Such is a brief exhibition of the results of the 
Higher Criticism in regard to the composition 
and date of the Pentateuch. All these hypoth- 
eses are made to rest respectively on the use of 
different divine names; on alleged contradictions 
and varying legends ; on difference in the circle 
of ideas; on the usus loquendi; on alleged lack 
of unity ; on traces, in the Pentateuch, of an age 
later than that of Moses; on historical and anti- 
quarian illustrations ; on references to ancient 
authorities; on the assumption that the writer's 
point of view, locally, was Palestine ; on a pre- 
supposed later state of matters than that indicated 
in the Pentateuch ; on the mention of names of 
places and of countries which were known and in 
common use only at a later time ; on historical 
repetitions; on alleged discrepancies in various 
laws ; on repetition of laws ; and on the assump- 
tion that the Levitical laws give a graduated 
hierarchy of priests and Levites, while Deuter- 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHOBSIIIP. 63 

onomy regards all Levites as at least possible 
priests. 

These arguments, in their main outlines, will 
be considered in the sequel. 

Books of Reference: Keil's Introduction to the Old 
Testament ; Bleek's Introduction to the Old Testament ; 
Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch; Kurtz's History of 
the Old Covenant; Kuenen's Eeligion of Israel; Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica, Article, Bible ; Prof. Curtiss's Levitical 
Priests. 



64 THE PENTATEUCH. 



CHAPTER II. 

ARGUMENTS URGED IN FAVOR OF THE DOCU- 
MENTARY, FRAGMENTARY, AND SUPPLEMEN- 
TARY HYPOTHESIS AND AGAINST THE MO- 
SAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

Section I. 

THE USE OP THE DIVINE NAMES, ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH. 

The alternate use of these names forms the 
fundamental argument in support of the docu- 
mentary hypothesis. The exclusive use of one 
of them in some sections and of the other in 
other sections, implies, it is affirmed, two differ- 
ent authors. The Pentateuch, therefore, it is 
asserted, is composed of two different documents, 
the one Elohistic, and the other Jehovistic, con- 
sequently, it can not be the work of a single 
author. 

It is not denied that Moses used documents, 
especially in the composition of the book of Gen- 
esis, if he is the author of that book ; but he 
probably employed them as any other historian 
employs documents. His history is not a collec- 



A a A INST MOSA IC A UTIIOBSHIP. 65 

tion of scraps, a mere patchwork, but a history 
possessing continuity and coherence of parts. 

(1.) The documentary hypothesis assumes that 
the names, Elohim and Jehovah, are synonymous 
and reciprocally interchangeable. This is a mis- 
take. The name Elohim. (singular Eloah) and 
its synonym El are connected, the for- Elohimand 
mer with the Arabic root aloha, to EL 
fear, reverence, worship ; the latter with the He- 
brew root ul, to be strong. Elohim is the generic 
name of God, and, being plural in form, is prob- 
ably a plural of excellence and majesty. 

Jehovah is derived from the Hebrew root 
hayah (Chaldaic h a vah; Syriac h e vo), to be, to exist, 
to live. It is a proper name, just as Jchovah 
Jupiter, Apollo, Peter, and John are 
proper names; and thus it differs from Elohim as 
Alexander differs from man. This distinction is 
clearly brought out in the words of Elijah, in 
1 Kings xviii, 21. The prophet asks, " How 
long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord 
[JehovaK] be God [Elohim~\ follow him ; but if 
Baal [be Elohwi] follow him." Here Jehovah 
and Baal are used as proper names and Elohim 
as a common name. 

The two names may be used interchangeably, 
for Elohim is Jehovah and Jehovah is Elohim; 

but the fundamental ideas of the two names 
5 



66 TEE PENT A TE UCE. 

differ. Elobim is the Supreme Being, the Deity, 
the Creator, the Preserver, and Governor of the 
The two world. Jehovah is He, who is and 

fnt?rchan|e- w iU be, He to whom belongs contin- 
a3y * ued existence, the God who manifests 

Himself in History, the God of revelation, the 
covenant God of His people. 

Though the two names may be used inter- 
changeably, yet there are cases in which there is 
a propriety in using one rather than the other. 
Jehovah does not take the possessive suffix, 
neither is it used in the construct state. Hence, 
we do not find, in Hebrew, the expressions my 
or thy or our Jehovah, nor the Jehovah of Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob ; but we do find my, thy, 
and our Elohim, and the Elohim of Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob. 

It has been inferred from Exodus vi, 3 — "And 

I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto 

Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, 

Exodus vi, 3. , . x T 

but by my name Jehovah was I not 
known to them" — that the person who recorded 
these words of God to Moses could not have 
written a history of earlier times, in which the 
name Jehovah was introduced. Those parts of 
Genesis, therefore, in which the name Jehovah is 
used must have been added by a subsequent hand. 
It has been, moreover, affirmed that names com- 



A GA TNS T M OS A IC A UTR ORSHIP. 67 

pounded with the sacred name of Jah or Jehovah 
do not occur until the time of Samuel; hence it 
has been inferred that the name could not have 
been known nor the sixth chapter of Exodus 
written until the time of Samuel. 

This view proceeds from a misapprehension 
of the passage cited above. The name Jehovah 
was not unknown to the patriarchs; and the 
words of Exodus vi, 3, properly understood, do 
not convey that meaning. 

In the first place, the form and derivation of 
the name Jehovah point to a pre-Mosaic origin. 
Its form is more nearly related to the Chaldaic 
verb h a vah, and to the Syriac h e vo, than to the 
Hebrew hayah; and consequently it must have 
come down from a time prior to the separation 
of the Hebrew from its kindred Aramaean dia- 
lects. That would carry us back to a time not 
later than that of Abraham. Again, as to names 
compounded with Jah, it is a mistake to say that 
they do not occur before the time of Samuel. It 
evidently occurs in Jochebed, the name of Moses' 
mother (Exodus vi, 20), in Azariah (1 Chron. ii, 
8), in Abiah (1 Chron. ii, 24), in Ahijah (1 
Chron. ii, 25), who all lived before the time of 
Samuel. Moreover, names compounded with the 
names of God are more rarely found in the early 
times than in the later. This explains why Je- 



68 



THE PENTATEUCH. 



hovah or Jah enters more frequently into the 
composition of names after the time of Samuel 
than in the time prior to him. 

If the name Jehovah was not unknown to the 
patriarchs, what then do the words of Exodus 
vi, 3, mean ? The words literally are : I am Je- 
hovah : and I appeared to Abraham, and to Isaac, 
and to Jacob by El-Shaddai; but [by] my name 
Jehovah was I not known (Septuagint oux idyZcoaa, 
from drjXoco, to point out, make Jcnown, reveal; 
Vulgate: non indicavi, from indico, indicare, to 
show, discover, disclose?) to them." The meaning 
evidently is: I manifested myself to Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob in the character of El-Shaddai, 
the Almighty God; but as to my character and 
attributes implied in my name Jehovah, I did not 
manifest myself to them. That is the sense of 
the Septuagint and Vulgate. It is no new inter- 
pretation framed to meet modern objections; but 
it was propounded by Aben-Ezra among the 
Jews, and by many Christian commentators of 
past times. The meaning of the passage is sim- 
ply : the full import of the name Jehovah was 
not disclosed to the patriarchs. The name is 
opposed, not to Elohim, but to El-Shaddai, which 
together with Jehovah, constitutes a twofold 
form of the revelation of Elohim. In the words 
of Keil ("Introduction to the Old Testament"): 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSRIP. 69 

" El-Shaddai designates only one operating force 
in the manifestations of Jehovah — namely, crea- 
tive omnipotence — in which Jehovah made him- 
self known to the patriarchs till the time of 
Moses, when, in consequence of the full realiza- 
tion of his promises given to the fathers, his 
nature as Jehovah unfolded itself fully." It was 
Jehovah who revealed himself to Abraham as 
El-Shaddai (Gen. xvii, 1). The names of Jeho- 
vah and El-Shaddai are, therefore, not mutually 
exclusive; but the one implicitly presupposes the 
other. 

2. The advocates of the documentary theory 
contradict one another, and thus convict one an- 
other of false criticism. Some make Theadv0 . 
one Elohist document, others two, oth- do^meSary 
ers three. Some make the Jehovist traSone 
identical with the compiler ; others 
make him a different person. Some make one 
Jehovist, others more. Some make two, others 
three, others four, Ewald seven, and Ilgen seven- 
teen documents, by different authors, the mate- 
rials of Genesis. Some assign passages to the 
Jehovist which others assign to the Elohist. Dr. 
McCaul remarks " that there is a great difference 
whether the Elohist and Jehovist be assigned to 
one or be divided among two, three, or more 
persons. He who says that there is only one 



70 THE PENTATEUCH. ' 

Elohist must believe that in the whole Elohistic 
portion there is unity of style, tone, spirit, lan- 
guage. If there be two Elohists, then the former 
is mistaken as to the unity, and there must be 
two diversities of style ; bat if there be three 
Elohists, then both first and second critics are 
mistaken, and there must be three different styles. 
The portions assigned to each must also be 
smaller. Let the three Elohists be A. B. C. The 
first critic says that the whole belongs to A. The 
second critic says, No ; but part belongs to B. 
The third critic says, part belongs to A, part to 
B, and part to C. And thus the most celebrated 
critics convict each other of false criticism. Hup- 
feld condemns Knobel ; Ewald condemns Hupfeld 
and Knobel ; Knobel condemns Ewald and Hup- 
feld. If KnobeFs criticism is correct, Hupfeld's 
is worthless. If Ewald is right, the others must 
be deficient in critical acumen. They may all 
be wrong, but only one of the three can be right." 
(" Aids to Faith/' New York : D. Appleton & 
Co. 1864. p. 223.) 

3. The documentary hypothesis requires, more- 
ever, for its validity that Elohim should be used 
exclusively in those sections or paragraphs called 
Elohistic, and that Jehovah should be used in 
the same way in those called Jehovistic. But 
this is not the fact. Jehovah occurs in the so- 



COMPOSITION AND A UTIIORSHIP. 71 

called Elohistic passages, and the Elohist refers 
to the so-called Jehovistic narrative. This fact 
proves that the Jehovist can not be posterior to 
the Elohist; consequently, the theory fails. The 
two names occur together in Genesis ii, 4, where 
one is manifestly the predicate of the other. If 
this verse and the subsequent verses of the same 
chapter, which combine the two names, were 
written by the Elohist, how come they to have 
Jehovah ? And if they were written by the Je- 
hovist, how come they to have Elohim? It 
would seem that the writer of Genesis, antici- 
pating the critical attempts of modern times to 
dismember his history, used the two names con- 
jointly to puzzle his critics. Such has been the 
result, for that single passage has arrayed the 
critics against one another. 

Genesis, chapter v, is said to be Elohistic, but 
Jehovah occurs in verse 29. Genesis, chapter vii, 
has Jehovah in verses 1, 5, and 16 ; Elohim oc- 
curs also in verse 16 ; and the Elohists and Je- 
hovists divide it thus : Elohist portions, vs. 6-9, 
11-1 6a, 17-22, 23b; Jehovist portions, vs. 1-5, 10, 
16b, 23a. Genesis xlix is divided thus : Yor- 
Elohist, vs. 3-28ab; Elohist vs. 1, 2, 28c-33. 
But Jehovah occurs in verse 18 : "I have waited 
for thy salvation, O Jehovah." The theorist ex- 
claims, Interpolation ! This is the resort of one 



72 THE PENTATEUCH. 

who is determined to force facts into harmony 
with his theory. If the facts are opposed to the 
theory, so much the worse for the facts. 

A hundred examples of the same arbitrary 
separation might be adduced from the Penta- 
teuch. (See KeiPs " Introduction to the Old Tes- 
tament." Vol. I. pp. 85-92. Clark's Edition, 
Edinburgh, 1869.) 

A criticism which thus arbitrarily breaks up 
the continuity of the narrative is worse than tri- 
fling. It gives evidence of a deliberate purpose 
to do violence to the text in order to support a 
mere theory. The author of the Pentateuch, 
whoever he was, was a historian who, without 
doubt, used documents when they were required ; 
but not in a manner so loose that the critic can, 
by running his eyes over the history, distinguish 
them as easily as he can distinguish the differ- 
ently colored squares of a chess-board. The doc- 
uments were so interwoven by the sacred histo- 
rian into his narrative as to produce a history 
possessed of continuity, homogeneity, and unity. 
The use of the divine names, Elohim and Jeho- 
vah, is not determined by accident or by the 
preference of different authors. When the hu- 
man race fell and commenced its career of his- 
torical development, God manifested himself as 
one who will not abandon it in its helplessness 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 73 

and misery. He revealed himself as Jehovah, 
the God of Salvation. By the help of Jehovah 
Eve bore a Son (Gen. iv, 1) ; and the pious 
Sethites called upon the name of Jehovah (v. 26). 
Thus at the beginning of the history of re- 
demption, the sacred historian introduces the 
name Jehovah ; and immediately prior to the 
establishment of the theocracy, God revealed its 
import, which he had not done to Abraham, 
Isaac, and -Jacob, though Abraham and Jacob 
were acquainted with the name, for Abraham 
said to the king of Sodom, " I have lifted up my 
hand to Jehovah, the most high God, the posses- 
sor of heaven and earth" (Gen. xiv, 22; and 
Jacob said, when dying, " I have waited for thy 
salvation, O Lord" [Heb. JehovaK] (Genesis 
xlix, 18). 

Section II. 

THE TWO SO-CALLED ELOHISTIC AND JEHOVISTIC DOCUMENTS 
SAID TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY CONTRADIC- 
TIONS AND VARYING LEGENDS. 

Any documents, no matter how close their 
agreement, may be made to contradict each other 
by false assumptions and erroneous principles of 
interpretation. 

1. Bleek says : "Ina narrative of the creation 
of the world and mankind by God, an Israelite 



74 THE PENTATEUCH. 

might just as well employ the more general ex- 
pression Elohim as the more exact one Jehovah; 
as to the Israelites the former name 

Gen. i, 1-ii ; 

standi!, would only suggest Jehovah, the God 
worshiped by them, since to no other 
god could they attribute creative power. The 
same rule would apply to a narrative of the deluge 
sent on the earth by God. Therefore, notwith- 
standing the difference in the ideas conveyed by 
the two words, founded on the usage of the lan- 
guage, the adoption of either one or the other is, 
in very many cases, dependent on the habit or 
discretion of the writer; and hence it arises that 
the consideration of the differences existing in 
this respect between various parts of Genesis, can 
at least help us as a guide in finding out and sep- 
arating the various original records and their dif- 
ferent composers. Thus we repeatedly find, that 
exactly those parts differ in this respect, in which 
we should be induced, by other circumstances, to 
suppose that the original composers were different. 
" This is very evident at the beginning of the 
book, in the account of the creation, in which, I 
think, no impartial judgment can fail to see that 
two different narratives are combined, the former 
of which was written without connection with 
the latter. The former — the account of creation 
divided into separate day's work (chap, i, 1-ii, 3) — 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 75 

throughout indicates the Godhead by the general 
denomination Elohim; the second, on the con- 
trary (chap, ii, 4-iii, end), has the compound 
name Jehovah- Elohim throughout, with the single 
exception of the conversation between the serpent 
and the woman (chap, iii), 1-5, where the use of 
the name Jehovah would have been absolutely 
unnatural and improper, where, therefore, the 
name of God is called Elohim. As for the rest, 
this difference prevails throughout in these two 
portions immediately following one another ; for 
which, if we suppose an identity of the original 
author, it will not be easy to find any sufficient 
ground. ... 

" There are, in addition, other circumstances 
which are not easily explained, if we assume that 
both passages were originally written by the same 
author and in immediate connection with each 
other. The second passage (chap, ii, 4), begins in 
a way, in which, under the above circumstances, 
it hardly would have done. There is no notice 
at all taken in the second of the contents of the 
first; but rather, in the second, the fructification 
of the earth and the creation of living beings is 
related as if there had been nothing at all said 
about it in what goes before. There are, besides, 
some differences in the two sections, both in the 
facts related and in the ideas on which thev are 



76 THE PENTATEUCH. 

founded, as well as in the sequence of the differ- 
ent acts of creation. According to chap, i, the 
creation of beasts follows that of the earth, before 
that of the male and female sexes of mankind ; 
on the contrary, in chap, ii, the creation of beasts 
is between that of man and that of woman. In 
chap, i, the creation of herbs on the earth is im- 
mediately referred to the Word of God, while in 
chap, ii, it is stated that the springing up of the 
shrubs and plants depended on the rain and hu- 
man cultivation. There is, also, a certain unmis- 
takable dilfe re nee in the statements of the original 
relations of man with God ; while, according to 
chap, i, God created man in his own image, in 
chaps, ii and iii, the narrative leads to the conclu- 
sion that man only attained to his resemblance to 
God through his getting to the knowledge of 
good and evil. This difference is not, indeed, of 
such a kind as to forbid the possibility of dog- 
matical reconciliation, but it certainly is of a 
nature which would lead us with great proba- 
bility to assume the fact of two original, distinct 
authors." (" Introduction to the Old Testament," 
Vol. I, pp. 268, 269, 270. London: Bell & 
Daldy. 1869.) 

These alleged differences arise solely from the 
arbitrary and groundless assumption that the 
passage, beginning at chap, ii, 4, contains a sec- 



COMPOSITION AND A UTIIORSHIP. 77 

ond narrative of creation, with its materials ar- 
ranged in the order of time. The second chapter 
is neither a cosmogony nor a geogony, nor was it 
intended to be such, for it does not give a narra- 
tive of the creation of heaven and earth, or of 
light, or of firmament, sun, moon, or stars, sea, 
or dry land, fish, or creeping things. It simply 
recapitulates certain creative acts, arranged ac- 
cording to a certain association of ideas, by way 
of introduction to the fall. Its general subject, 
extending to chap, v, falls into three clearly 
marked sections — the origin, the fall, and the 
family of Adam. 

It contains (v. 4) a reference to the account of 
creation by Elohim in chap, i, by designating Je- 
hovah Jehovah- Elohim , thus combining the two 
names. It also fixes the date at wdiich the new 
narrative commences; viz., "when they were cre- 
ated, in the day that the Lord God \Jehovah-Elo- 
hiiii] made the earth and the heavens." 

A question arises whether chap, ii, 4, forms a 
recapitulation of what is narrated in the first 
chapter, or whether it is the superscription of the 
following section. Dr. McCaul (" Aids to Faith," 
p. 228) says : " The fourth verse of the second 
chapter, ' these are the generations of the heavens 
and of the earth/ etc., can not be the title or 
the summary of what follows, but are an exact 



78 THE PENTATEUCH. 

recapitulation of what is narrated in the first 
chapter." 

Havernick seems to entertain the same opin- 
ion. (" Historico-Critical Introduction to the 
Pentateuch," p. 63. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. 
1850.) 

The Jews tell us that when the words eleh 
Tholedoth occur without the copulative vav, as in 
this verse, they separate the words following from 
those preceding; but that when they have the 
vav they unite with the preceding. The writer 
does not vouch for the accuracy of this opinion. 
It does not seem to be supported by the passages 
that have come under his observation. In fact, 
no conclusion can be drawn from the position of 
the phrase eleh Tholedoth, though it is generally 
the form of a commencement, the title of a fol- 
lowing section. (Gen. vi, 9 ; x, 1 ; xi, 10, 27 ; 
xxv, 12, 19, etc.) 

The word tholedoth properly signifies genera- 
tions, families, races, the history of families. (Gen. 
v. 1 ; vi, 9 ; x, 1 ; xi, 10; xxxvii, 2.) TJwledoth, 
taken in this sense, would describe "the process 
of nature, which was simultaneous with the latter 
part of the supernatural process described in the 
preceding chapter. Its opening paragraph refers 
to the field. The development of events is here 
presented under the figure of the descendants of 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 79 

a parental pair; the skies and the land being the 
metaphorical progenitors of these events which 
are brought about by their conjunct operation." 
(Murphy's " Commentary on Genesis," p. 80. An- 
dover: Warren F. Draper. 1866.) 

This section (vs. 4-7) overlaps part of the 
preceding and combines the creative with the 
preservative agency of God. Hence the propri- 
ety of uniting the two names Jehovah and Elohim 
in a passage which records a concurrence of cre- 
ation and development. It is evident, therefore, 
that the second chapter is not an account of cre- 
ation, but of the particulars of the formation of 
man and woman, and of their early history. 

2. Bishop Colenso says : " A similar contradic- 
tion exists also in the account of the deluge as it 
now stands in the Bible. Thus, in 
Gen. vi, 19, 20, we read, ' of every 20 and' 

... J vii.2,3. 

living thing of all flesh two of every 
sort shalt thou bring into the ark/ etc. 

"But in Gen. vii, 2, 3, the command is given 
thus : " of every clean beast thou shalt take to 
thee by sevens, 7 etc. 

"It is impossible," continues Bishop Colenso, 
"to reconcile the contradiction here observed, in 
the numbers of living creatures to be taken into 
the ark, especially in the case of the fowls, of 
which one pair of every kind is to be taken, 



80 THE PENTATEUCH. 

according to the first direction, and seven pairs, 
according to the second. 

"But here, also, the matter explains itself 
easily, when we observe that the former passage 
is by the hand of that writer who uses only Elo- 
him, and the latter passage by the other writer 
who uses Jehovah as well as Elohim, though he 
does not use the compound phrase Jehovah-Elo- 
him. It did not occur to the one — whether 
aware or not, of the distinction between clean 
and unclean beasts — to make any provision for 
sacrificing immediately after the flood. The lat- 
ter bethinks himself of the necessity of a sacri- 
fice (Gen. viii, 20), when Noah and his family 
come out of the ark; and he provided, therefore, 
the mystical number of seven pairs of clean 
beasts and fowls for that purpose." (" Bishop Co- 
lenso on the Pentateuch," p. 91. London : Long- 
mans, Green & Co. 1871.) 

Bishop Colenso does not seem to be very cer- 
tain about the author of Gen. vii, 2, 3. He 
speaks of a writer who uses only Elohim, the 
author of Gen. vi, 19, 20, and of another who 
uses Jehovah as well as Elohim, though he does 
not use the compound phrase Jehovah-Elohim. 
Who is the author who uses Jehovah as well as 
Elohim f Is there a Jehovistic-Elohistic author? 
Perhaps the Bishop has given an answer to this 






COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 81 

question, in chap, v, sec. 965, p. 305, where he 
says : " But we are justified, at all events, in con- 
cluding, from the evidence at present before us, 
that the Jehovistic writer — whether we regard 
him as the writer of a complete, independent 
narrative, or merely as the interpolator of the 
primary Elohistic document — was one who wrote 
with considerable independence and boldness of 
thought, and who felt himself in no way bound 
to adhere scrupulously to the details of the orig- 
inal story, or to maintain with it a perfect unity 
of style any more than of sentiment." 

The Jehovistic writer, then, was either "the 
writer of a complete, independent narrative," or 
" the interpolator of the primary Elohistic docu- 
ment." Allowing him all the " independence 
and boldness of thought " claimed for him, it is 
reasonable that we should expect from him, " as 
the interpolator of the primary Elohistic docu- 
ment," or from the redactor or editor who com- 
bined that document with the Jehovistic, more 
regard for the truth of history than to transmit 
to us a narrative self-contradictory. 

But is there any contradiction in the nar- 
rative ? 

The first account (Gen. vi, 19, 20) belongs to 
the time when God commanded Noah to build 
the ark. The second (Gen. vii, 2, 3) belongs to 

6 



82 



THE PENTATEUCH. 



a later period, and is simply an amplification and 
special carrying out of the first. At first God 
directed Noah to bring " two of every sort of 
every living thing of all flesh into the ark." Be- 
fore entering the ark, God said to him : " Of 
every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by 
sevens, the male and his female : and of beasts 
that are not clean by two, the male and his 
female." Abarbanel takes the first passage as 
simply asserting that the beasts should come 
paired, male and female ; the second as specifying 
the number of the pairs, seven of the clean, two 
of the unclean, animals. It is, however, doubtful 
whether the numeral seven means pairs or individ- 
uals. (See Lange's Commentary, in loc.) 

Taking the second passage as an amplification 
of the former, there is no contradiction between 
them. The two accounts are perfectly consistent, 
and " wholly in correspondence with the advanc- 
ing prophecy." The former account simply states 
that Noah was commanded to bring into the ark 
" two of every sort of every living thing of all 
flesh :" the latter, that he was commanded to 
make a distinction between the clean and the 
unclean, and to take into the ark seven of the 
clean and two of the unclean. Where is the con- 
tradiction? There is only amplification. 

3. A contradiction is said to exist between 



CO MP OSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 83 

several verses of Gen. x, 7, 13, which trace the 
descent of Havilah, Sheba, Dedan, Gen. x, vs. 7, 

13 2'' 28 29 

and Ludim to Ham ; and vs. 22, 28, and xxv, 3.' 
29, and chap, xxv, 3, which place them among 
the descendants of Shem. 

Are the names in chap, x, 7, 13, and those in 
vs. 22, 28, 29, and in chap, xxv, 3, identical? 
It must be proved that they are before a contra- 
diction can be alleged to exist. We meet with 
recurring names, as in the genealogies of the 
Cainites and Sethites. (Gen. iv, 17-19, and 
v, 18, 25.) 

4. A discrepancy is said to exist between Gen. 
xv, 18; Ex. xxiii, 31; Num. xxxiv, 1-12; Deut. 
xi, 24. (Compare Josh, i, 4.) 

Various schemes of reconciling these passages 
have been proposed, (a) Keil considers the three 
first -mentioned passages as prophetical 
promises, which, agreeably to their Ex. xxiii,3i; 

7 , . , Num. xxxiv, 

oratorical character, give merely cer- 1-12; Deut. 
tain great and well-known points as compare 
boundaries, which are more precisely 
defined and limited only when we come to read 
of the land of the Canaanites, as we always 
do in these very passages; whereas Num. xxxiv, 
1-12, describes the boundaries with geographical 
precision. 

(6) Another scheme proceeds on the principle 



84 THE PENTATEUCH. 

that these are the widest and narrowest bounda- 
ries, respectively, the maxima and minima of the 
promise, which admitted of a more liberal or a 
more restricted accomplishment according as, in 
the sequel, Israel should prove fit to occupy the 
place which lay open for them in the world, or 
should fail to appreciate their high calling and 
the warrant to appropriate so vast a territory. In 
this way may be explained 2 Sam. viii, 3 : " David 
smote also Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of 
Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the 
river Euphrates/' 

(c) Another explanation is, that the Israelites 
are, in the future, to occupy this wide extent of 
country on the occasion of their restoration to 
their own land; their former occupation, on com- 
ing up out of Egyptian bondage, and much more, 
of course, after their return from Babylon, falling 
short of that which was insured to them by the 
promise of Jehovah. 

Either a or b removes the discrepancy and 
sufficiently vindicates the sacred writer against 
what, in any historian, would be considered an 
egregious blunder. 

Gen xxv **• ^ discrepancy is made to exist 

Gef*S4 between Gen. xxv, 31-33 and Gen. 
1 - 29 -* ' xxvii, 1-29. 

The first passage relates how Esau sold his 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 85 

birthright to Jacob ; the second, how Jacob de- 
ceived his father so as to obtain his blessing 
meant for the first-born. 

The alleged discrepancy evidently confounds 
two things — the birthright and the blessing — 
which are entirely distinct. Jacob purchased the 
former; but obtained the latter by fraud and 
falsehood. There is no contradiction between 
Jacob's deceit and Esau's sale of his birthright. 

6. Gen. xxvii, 41-45, according to which Ja- 
cob was compelled to flee from Esau's Gen xxvii 
wrath, is said to contradict Gen. xxvii, xxvn,46^' 
46 — xxviii, 1-9, according to which he s 

was sent to Mesopotamia to obtain a wife. 

It is a sufficient solution to say that the one 
motive does not exclude the other. Moreover, it 
is distinctly stated that Rebekah planned Jacob's 
journey to Padan-aram, under the pretense of 
obtaining a wife, to save him from the execution 
of Esau's threat to kill him. 

7. It is said that Gen. xxx, 24, gives an ety- 
mology of the name Joseph different from that 
in verse 23. Verse 23 gives no etymol- Gen xxx ^ 
ogy at all. In verse 23 Rachel says, and - v - 24! 
"God hath taken away (Heb. asaph) my re- 
proach : and she called his name Joseph (Heb. 
Yoseph, from y asaph, to add) ; and said, The Lord 
shall add to me another son" (v. 24). Joseph's 



86 THE PENTATEUCH. 

birth was a proof that God had taken away from 
Rachel the reproach of barrenness ; and it also 
excited the wish that he would add another son. 

8. The narrative, Gen. xxx, 25-43, is said to 
differ from that in Gen. xxxi, 4-48. The former 
Gen. xxx, gives an account of the manner in 
Gen 3 'xxxi, which Jacob acquired his wealth; in 

the latter, Jacob represents his riches 
to his wives and to Laban as a divine blessing, 
and says nothing of the means which he had 
employed. In this there is no contradiction to 
chap, xxx, where an account is given of these 
means. 

9. Esau's stay in Edom, Gen. xxxii, 3, con- 
tradicts, it is said, Gen. xxxvi, 6-8, which says 

that he went there after Jacob's return 

Gen. xxxii, 3, _. * a, 1 -• i « 

and Gen. to Canaan, and alter the death of 

xxxvi, 6-8. 

Isaac. Esau married Mahalath, the 
daughter of Ishmael (Gen. xxviii, 9), who " dwelt 
in the wilderness of Paran" (Gen. xxi, 21), which 
is near Edom. It is possible, therefore, that he 
may have been there at the time of Jacob's re- 
turn from Padan-aram. At that time Isaac was 
still alive and dwelling in Hebron, which is not 
very far from Edom. It is probable, therefore, 
that Esau, in the absence of Jacob, would not 
make a permanent removal to Edom, but remain 
near his aged father to comfort him and assist 



CO MP 0S1 TION A ND A UTHOHSHIP. 87 

him in the management of his affairs. Hebron 
may have been his chief residence and Edom an 
out-station or colony. 

10. Esau's wives have created some difficulty. 
According to Gen. xxvi, 34, he took two wives, 
Judith, the daughter of Beeri, the Hit- 

70 Gen. xxxvi, 

tite, and Bashemath, the daughter 01 z±; Gen. 

7 ' & xxvm, 9 ; 

Elon, the Hittite. He added to these Gen.xxxvi, 
Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael 
(Gen. xxviii, 9). In Gen. xxxvi, 2, 3, his wives 
are called Adah, the daughter of Elon, the Hit- 
tite ; Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah ; and 
Bashemath, the daughter of Ishmael. 

Vaihinger makes these passages Elohistic ; and, 
of course, can not see any difficulty. Keil and 
Lange reconcile them by the fact that women, at 
their marriage, received new names. This was 
the custom among the ancient Orientals; and it 
is still in use among the Arabians. Men often 
received surnames from some important or re- 
markable event of life. Esau was called Edom 
(Gen. xxv, 30). Anah was called Beeri (man of 
the spring), from the fact that he found some 
" hot springs " * in the wilderness. 

11. Gen. xxxii, 22—32, contains, it 22-32 and ' 
is said, an account of Jacob's change 10* 

of name different from that in Gen. xxxv, 10. 

*So the Hebrew word hayyanim (Gen. xxxvi, 24) should be trans, 
lated, instead of "mules." 



88 THE PENTATEUCH. 

The latter instance may be regarded as a rat- 
ification and confirmation of the former, at Pen- 
iel ; and it is connected with the Messianic prom- 
ise which God makes to him (Gen. xxxv, 11, 12). 
Murphy suggests that, at Bethel, God "renews 
the change of name, to indicate that the meet- 
ings here were of equal moment in Jacob's spir- 
itual life with that at Penuel [Peniel]. It im- 
plies, also, that this life had been declining in 
the interval between Penuel and Bethel, and 
had now been revived by the call of God to 
go to Bethel, and by the interview." (Com. on 
Genesis.) 

12. Bleek (Vol. I, p. 267) observes: "There 

are two narratives about the origin of the name 

Bethel: (a) chap, xxviii, 19: (b) chap. 

Gen. xxviii, ' \ / r > , . T 

19, and Gen. xxxv, 9-15 ; both these refer it to Ja- 

xxxv, 9-lo. 7 7 

cob, who had a divine manifestation 
there. They bear a general resemblance to each 
other, but vary in this, that in one Jacob gave 
the name Bethel to this place, which was previ- 
ously called Luz, on his journey into Mesopo- 
tamia; in the other, that he did this some years 
later as he returned from Mesopotamia. It is, 
to say the least, improbable, that both passages 
should have been composed originally in their 
present state by one and the same independent 
author." 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 89 

Critics differ as to the authorship of these pas- 
sages. Vaihinger makes them both Elohistic. 
Tuch and others assign both to the Fundamental 
Document. Dr. Samuel Davidson assigns the 
first to the younger Elohist, and the second 
(except ity, vs. 9, 10) to the Elohist. When the 
Jehovist interpolated v. 5; and from TPI, v. 16, to 
nrrop, v. 20 (Davidson), it is singular that he did 
not obliterate such awkward repetitions and con- 
tradictions as critics have found in these passages. 

There is no contradiction between the two 
narratives. Jacob came to Luz, that is Bethel 
(xxxv, 6), and began the payment of the vow 
which he had made twenty-six or twenty-seven 
years before at this place (xxviii, 20-22). At 
his second visit he confirmed the name which 
had been given to the place at first. The place 
was called Luz by its inhabitants, though in the 
very first notice that we have of it, on Abra- 
ham's arrival in Canaan, it was called Bethel, 
without any mention of Luz (Gen. xii, 8, and 
xiii, 3) ; and in chap, xlviii, 3, Jacob gives it 
the name Luz without any mention of Bethel. 
It is difficult to explain these variations. The 
Elohist, who was the author of Gen. xii, 8 ; 
xxxv, 9-15; xlviii, 3; the younger Elohist, the 
writer of Gen. xxviii, 17-22 ; and the Jehovist, 



90 THE PENTATEUCH. 

who was the author of Gen. xiii, 3, have left 
them unexplained.* 

There is, however, no real difficulty. The 
Canaanites did not adopt the name given to it 
by Jacob, but continued to call it Luz. Hence, 
when the descendants of Joseph "went up 
against " it (Judges i, 22-26), they found that it 
was called Luz by its inhabitants; but they called 
it Bethel, the name given to it by the patriarch 
Jacob. 

Suppose that the writer of Genesis does use 
the name Bethel in connection with the history 
of Abraham. It is not necessary. to infer from 
that fact that it was so called in Abraham's time. 
He merely designated it by a name known in his 
own time. A modern Greek writer might use the 
name Constantinople when referring to the By- 
zantium of ancient Greek history ; and it would 
certainly be very hypercritical to accuse him of 
an egregious blunder. 

13. Beersheba is named by Abraham (Gen. 

xxi, 31) ; and it is named subsequently by Isaac 

(Gen. xxvi, 33). The rationalistic ob- 

andGen.' jection to the double history of the 

xxvi, 33. J . J . . 

name, in these two passages, is tnat 



*So Dr. Davidson distributes these passages. Vaihinger assigns 
chapters xii, 8 B ; xxviii, 19 ; xxxv, 9-15 ; xlviii, 3, to the ElohJst ; and 
chapter xiii, 3, to the Jehovist. The critics differ more than their imag- 
inary authors. 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 91 

" identical names are not twice imposed." But 
Prof. J. L. Porter (Kitto's Encyclopaedia, Article 
Gilgal) says that this is " in full accordance with 
the genius of the Oriental languages and the 
literary tastes of the people," to renew an old 
name with a new meaning and significancy at- 
tached to it. 

In chap, xxvi, 18, it is distinctly stated that 
" Isaac digged again the wells of water, which 
they had digged in the days of Abraham his 
father; for the Philistines had stopped them 
after the death of Abraham : and he called their 
names after the names by which his father had 
called them." It is not stated that the well men- 
tioned in verses 32, 33, is the identical well that 
Abraham dug (xxi, 25-31). It may have been 
another in the same locality. Robinson says : 
" Upon its northern side [of Wady es-Seba], 
close upon the bank, are two deep wells, still 
called Bir es-Seba, the ancient Beersheba." 
(" Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, 
and Arabia Petraea," Vol. I, p. 300.) 

14. The merchants to whom Jo- Gen. xxxvii, 

25 27 ^8 ■ 

seph was sold are called Ishmaelites xxxixfi! 

_*■ . . xxxvii, 28, 36; 

(Gen. xxxvii, 25, 27, 28, and xxxix, *i, 15. 
1), and Midianites (xxxvii, 28, 36). 

The advocates of the documentary hypothesis 
are, of course, obliged to assign xxxvii, 28, to 



92 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

two different authors. Accordingly, Dr. Samuel 
Davidson assigns the first part of the verse to 
Iton to the younger Elohist, and the latter part, 
from 'l?o"i to *]??, to the Jehovist. Yaihinger 
makes the Vor-Elohist the author of xxxvii, 28 a , 
and the Elohist the author of xxxvii, 28 bcd . Con- 
jectures are easy ; and one may be as good as 
another. Keil and Lange may be as near the 
truth as Davidson and Vaihinger, when the for- 
mer (Keil) thinks that the two tribes were often 
confounded, on account of their common descent 
from Abraham, and of the similarity of their 
customs and modes of life ; and when the latter 
(Lange) suggests that the Ishmaelites may have 
been the proprietors of the caravan, which was 
made up mostly of Midianites. Either of these 
explanations is certainly more natural than cut- 
ting up a verse into three or four fragments to 
satisfy different critical schemes. There is no 
contradiction between chap, xxxvii, 28, which 
states that Joseph was sold, and chap, xl, 15, in 
which Joseph says that he was stolen : he merely 
means that his enslavement was an act of vio- 
lence, a robbery. 

Gen.xxxix, 15 ' Gen « XXxix > 20 > xl > 4 > 0D the 

and X xxx!x, one hand, and chap, xxxix, 21-23, on 

21 " 23, the other, are said to be contradictory. 

"The contradiction is based upon an arbi- 



CO MP OSITION AND A UTH ORSHIP. 93 

trary identification of the keeper of the prison in 
xxxix, 21, with the captain of the guard in xl, 4." 
(KeiPs "Introduction to the Old Testament," 
Vol. I, p. 108.) 

16. Gen. xlii, 27, 35, and xliii, 21, have been 
pronounced contradictory. 

In the first passage the sons of Jacob tell Jo- 
seph's steward that they opened their 

, , i n \ i i • Gen - xlii > 

sacks at the inn, and found each his 27, 35, and 

. xlui, 21. 

money in his sack ; whereas, according 
to the first passage, only one opened his sack at 
the inn and found his money ; and the rest, ac- 
cording to verse 35, first found their money on 
opening their sacks at home. " These are cir- 
cumstances," observes Keil, " which can not for 
a moment be a proof of divergence such as would 
point to two sources of history." 

"According to xlii, 35," remarks Dr. Doug- 
las, the translator of Keil, " it was only on emp- 
tying their sacks at home that the rest found their 
money ; but the one who opened his sack at the 
inn (verse 27), found his money in his sack's 
mouth. Nothing would be more natural than for 
the others to open their sacks, too, in their aston- 
ishment and anxiety ; but not finding the money 
at the mouth, they might well stop short of emp- 
tying their sacks ; and the details of this pro- 
ceeding, which had no bearing upon the general 



94 THE PENTATEUCH. 

course of the history, are omitted, according to 
the usual practice, in the sacred narrative. It is 
really an incidental evidence of the accuracy and 
truthfulness of the history, that in xliii, 21, the 
opening of all the sacks is mentioned, even if we 
grant that the speakers made their statement to 
Joseph's steward so condensed as to fail in strict 
accuracy throughout; although it is quite pos- 
sible to defend its strict accuracy, and to leave 
it exposed to no charge, except possibly that of 
imperfection by translating." (Keil's " Intro- 
duction to the Old Testament/' Vol. I, pp. 
108, 109.) 

17. In Exodus iii, 1; iv, 18; and xviii, 1, 
Moses' father-in-law is called Jethro ; while in 
Ex m i- ii, 18 (compare verse 21), he is called 
xvii?, ; i;and Reuel. In Num. x, 29, he is named 

ii, 18 (com- -r> 1 

pare v. 21); Kagliel. 

and Num. x, -^ ^^ ^ (( ^^ „ ^ „ j^^ „ 

have the same letters and vowel points, and are, 
therefore, the same name and person. 

Keil thinks that Jethro or Jether (from *V% 
to be pre-eminent, to excel) was a mere title of 
honor or office (equivalent to the title, his emi- 
nence, given to cardinals in the Roman Catholic 
Church) belonging to Raguel. This view, if 
correct, removes the contradiction. 

Josephus says that Jethro was one of the 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 95 

names of Raguel. (Ant., B. II, Chap, xii, Sec- 
tion 1.) 

But on turning to Num. x, 29, we read: "And 
Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel, the 
Midianite, Moses' father-in-law," etc. Was Ho- 
bab the father-in-law of Moses? or was Raguel? 
Both the original and the English translation are 
ambiguous ; and from them we can not determine 
whether " father-in-law " is in apposition to Ho- 
bab or Raguel.* 

Some think that the English version of Judges 
iv, 11, favors the former; viz., that it stands in 
apposition to Hobab. But the Hebrew word T?0 
means to join affinity, to give one's daughter in 
marriage, to take in marriage. Dr. Cassel (Com. 
on Judges, Lange's Bible-Work, in loc.) says 
that l 7 ?^ (the participial form from *pn) m ay stand 
for both father-in-law and brother-in-law, just as 
in German, Schwaher (father-in-law) and Schwa- 
ger (brother-in-law) are at bottom one." Should 
any one, therefore, insist on placing *p. n (Num. 
x, 29) in apposition to Hobab, it may be ren- 
dered brother-in-law, w T hich would bring this pas- 
sage and Judges iv, 11, into harmony w T ith the 
others. 



* The Septuagillt : T<3 'Oj3a/3 vl<Z 'Payovr)\ tu MaSiaviVrj, yanfipip, 
Miovcrij. 

Luther : Zuseinem Schwager Hobab, deni Sohn Raguels. 
Vulgate : Hobab filio Raguel Madianitae, Coguato suo. 



96 THE PENTATEUCH. 

18. Exodus iv, 31, and vi, 9. 

The first passage, which, according to Vai- 
hinger, is Jehovistic, ascribes joyful faith to the 
Ex.iv,3i; children of Israel from the first. The 
and vi, 9. second, which, according to the same 
critic, is Elohistic, states that the children of Is- 
rael " hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of 
spirit and for cruel bondage." Yaihinger pro- 
nounces them contradictory. They are contra- 
dictory when viewed in juxtaposition. But some 
time elapsed between the interviews of Moses with 
the people of Israel mentioned in the two passages. 
Because speedy deliverance did not come after 
the first interview, the children of Israel, disap- 
pointed and disheartened, would not listen to 
Moses at the second. The two passages are rec- 
onciled by chap, v, 19-23. It is objected that 
these verses speak only of the officers. But if 
the officers were so dejected we might certainly 
expect the people to be. 

Ex. iv,2, 3, 19. The Elohist, it is said, places 

17, 19; viii, ' the rod always in the hand of Aaron 

16, 17 ; ix, 23, / . 

and x, 13. as the worker of miracles; but the 
Jehovist puts it in the hand of Moses. 

The passages referred to are iv, 2, 3 ; iv, 20 c , 
and vii, 15, 17, which place it in the hand of 
Moses; vii, 9, 19; viii, 16, 17, which place it 
in the hand of Aaron ; ix, 23 ; and x, 13, which 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 97 

put it in the hand of Moses. Chap, viii, 6, says : 
" Aaron stretched out his hand." 

Of these passages, according to Vaihinger, 
chap, iv, 2, 3, is Jehovistic ; iv, 20 c , is the same ; 
vii, 15, 17, is Elohistic ; vii, 9, 19, is the same; 
viii, 16, 17, is Jehovistic; so also are ix, 23 and 
x, 13. 

Davidson makes iv, 2, 3, 20 c ; vii, 15, 17; 
viii, 16, 17; ix, 23; x, 13 Jehovistic; and vii, 
9, 19, Elohistic. 

These comparisons show that the critics do 
not agree with one another. They differ more 
than the Elohist and Jehovist. The Elohist, ac- 
cording to Vaihinger (the Redactor, according to 
Davidson), says that Aaron was appointed to act 
as Moses' prophet (vii, 1) ; and when the rod was 
placed in his hands, it was given to him as the 
prophet of Moses. 

20. It is alleged that there are differences in 
the representation given of the Exo- Ex ^ off . 
dus. The Elohist speaks of the total g- fj. ^| 5 ' 
liberation of Israel (Ex. vi, 2ff; vii, 2; ^CU, vm'i- 
ix, 35 ; xi, 10) ; but the Jehovist 
speaks merely of the people going to keep a feast 
to Jehovah at Sinai (Ex. iii, 18; v, 1, 3; vii, 16; 
viii, 1; x, 3, 8, 24-26). 

There is no contradiction between the two so- 
called authors of these passages ; and nothing to 

7 



98 THE PENTATEUCH. 

indicate that they do not belong to one author. 
In the one class of passages Pharaoh is com- 
manded to let the people go ; in the other class 
a reason is assigned for the command. In chap, 
x, 3, 8, 24-26, the Jehovist mentions both the 
reason and the total liberation ; and chap, viii, 1, 
which Vaihinger makes Elohistic, mentions the 
reason along with the command. 

21. Exodus ii, 22; iv, 20; and xviii, 2-6. 
The first passage (Vaihinger, Elohistic; Dav- 
idson, Jehovistic) says that Zipporah bore Mo- 
ses a son, and he called his name 

■p-~ . ;i 09 • 

iv,*2o'; and Gershom : the second (Vaihinger, Je- 

xviii, 2-6. . . . . _ v ° 

hovistic ; Davidson, the same) states 
that " Moses took his wife and his sons, and set 
them upon an ass, and he returned to the land 
of Egypt:" the third (Vaihinger, Vor-Elohist; 
Davidson, Younger Elohist, except 2 b ) states that 
" Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, took Zipporah, 
Moses 5 wife, after he had sent her back, . . . 
and Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his 
sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness, 
where he encamped at the mount of God." 

The contradiction, if any exists, is removed 
by the words (xviii, 2 b ) "after he had sent her 
back," which Davidson assigns to the Redactor, 
but Vaihinger to the Vor-Elohist. 

22. It is said that Exodus xvii, 8, and xix, 2, 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 99 

which, according to Vaihinger, are both Elohis- 
tic, are closely connected together ; and that chap, 
xviii is an interpolation ; because verse 5 makes 
Jethro come to " the mount of God," which is 
Mount Sinai, whereas Israel did not come to it 
until xix, 2. 

Keil remarks : " Were there no other reply, 
it would be sufficient to say that there is no de- 
cisive proof of chap, xviii being meant to pre- 
cede chap, xix, 2, in respect of time ; the meeting 
with Jethro may have been intentionally narrated 
first, so as to leave room for an uninterrupted 
narrative of the meeting with Jehovah at Sinai. 
Compare the history of Joseph in relation to the 
position of Gen. xxxviii." (" Introduction to the 
Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 111.) 

23. It is affirmed that the choice of judges 
is placed later in Deut. i, 9-18, than in Exodus 
xviii, 13ff. This rests upon too nar- Exxviiil3ff . 
row a conception of the import of the Deut h 9 ~ 18 ' 
phrase, " at that time " (Deut. i, 9), which affirms 
only that it was during the stay at Horeb, as 
appears from a comparison with vs. 18, 19. 

24. According to Lev. xxvii, 27, and Num. 
xviii, 16, the first-born of unclean ani- Lev :s ^ vii27 . 
mals were to be redeemed with money; ^Ex^iiii, 
but, according to Exodus xiii, 13, and 13; xxxiv ' 20 - 



100 THE PENTA TE TJCH. 

xxxiv, 20, they were to be redeemed with a lamb, 
or otherwise to be put to death. 

It has been suggested by Keil that the earlier 
law, which commanded that an ass should be re- 
deemed with a lamb, or else put to death, was 
modified for the advantage of the income of the 
priests. (" Introduction to the Old Testament," 
Yol. I, p. 112.) 

Such a modification was very likely to be 
made, inasmuch as a large number of lambs 
might, in some circumstances, be very incon- 
venient, unless they were sold for money or ex- 
changed for merchandise. Hence, it would be 
very natural to substitute a money redemption 
for them. This is a mere hypothesis ; but it is 
an hypothesis as reasonable as that of two dis- 
tinct authors. 

25. According to Exodus xxi, 1-6, and Deut. 

xv, 12-18, a Hebrew slave was to go 
andbeiit.xv, free in the seventh year of his servi- 

12—18 

tude; but, according to Lev. xxv, 40, 
in the year of jubilee. 

These passages are not contradictory. A He- 
brew servant was to be set free in the seventh 
year of his servitude ; but sooner, if the year of 
jubilee occurred during the seven years. 

26. A discrepancy is said to exist between 



COMPOSITION AND A TJTHORSHIP. 101 

Lev. xxiii, Num. xxviii, xxix, which mention 
five great feasts and holy convocations, and Ex- 
odus xxiii, 14—16; xxxiv, 18-23; and 
Deut. xvi, 1-17, which mention only Num X xxVm, 
three, together with pilgrimages to the xxm.'i4r-i6; 

' 5 ± & & xxxiV, 18-23, 

Sanctuary. m and Deut. 

(a) Of these passages, Lev. xxiii 
gives a list of all the feast seasons on which holy 
convocations occurred and all business ceased. 
These included not only the three great feasts, 
but all the appointed times of meeting, along 
with the Sabbath. " A holy convocation," there- 
fore, neither required nor meant a pilgrimage to 
the sanctuary. 

(b) Num. xxviii and xxix contain a list of all 
the offerings to be brought on all the days of the 
year (not on feast-days only), without determin- 
ing the number of great feasts. 

(c) Exodus xxiii, 14-16 ; xxxiv, 18-23, and 
Deut. xvi, 1-17, give us no complete calendar of 
feast days ; but in connection with the ordinances 
as to hallowing the first-born (compare Exodus 
xxiii, 19; xxxiv, 19, 20; Deut. xv, 19-23), they 
treat only incidentally and briefly of those feasts 
at which Israel was to appear annually before the 
Lord, at his sanctuary, w T ith offerings of the first 
fruits of the land, which Jehovah had bestowed 
upon them. 



102 THE PENTATEUCH. 

It will be evident, on considering the purport 
of these different passages, that the contradiction 
is caused by identifying the holy convocations 
with the pilgrimages to the sanctuary. 

27. Lev. xxiii, 18, 19, says that seven lambs, 
one bullock, and two rams were appointed as a 

burnt-offering, one. kid of the goats 

Lev. xxiii, . . 

18 > i?; Num. f or a sin-offering, and two lambs for a 

xxvm, 27, 30. . 

peace-offering at the feast of weeks; 
and Num. xxviii, 27, 30, says two bullocks, one 
ram, seven lambs for the burnt-offering, and one 
kid of the goats for the sin-offering. 

(a) Lev. xxiii, 18, 19, treats of the sacrifices 
connected with the presentation of the loaves of 
the first fruits. 

(b) Num. xxviii, 27, 30 treats of the general 
offerings belonging to that feast-day. 

(c) Observe the recurring expression, "beside 
the continual burnt-offering" (Num. xxviii, 10, 
31), which furnishes the explanation. 

28. A discrepancy is alleged to exist between 
Num. i, and Exodus xxxviii, 25, 26, compared 
with xxx, 12ff. 

(a) In Num. chap, i, the "Lord spake unto 

Moses, saying: Take ye the sum of 

25%6HJum. all the congregation of the children of 

with Ex. Israel, after their families, by the house 

xxx, 12ff. \ . 

of their fathers, with the number of 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 103 

their names, every male by their polls; from 
twenty years old and upward, all that are able to 
go forth to war in Israel : thou and Aaron shall 
number them by their armies " (vs. 1, 2, 3). 

After the numbering of each tribe, the ex- 
pression, " all that were able to go forth to war," 
recurs in verses 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 
38, 40, 42. 

A perusal of the chapter will show that the 
object of the census, on this occasion, was not 
merely to number the people, but also to make 
an orderly disposition of the men of war, both in 
the camp and on the march. 

(b) Exodus xxxviii, 25, 26 (compare xxx, 12ff), 
assumes a simple numbering of the people for a 
poll-tax. 

29. Num. iv, 6, says : " When the camp set- 
teth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and 
they shall take down the covering veil, Num iv 6 . 
and cover the ark of testimony with Ex> xxv « 15, 
it : and shall put thereon a covering of badgers' 
skins, and shall spread over it a cloth wholly of 
blue, and shall put in the staves thereof." 

Exodus xxv, 15: "The staves shall be in 
the rings of the ark : they shall not be taken 
from it." 

Num. iv, 6, states that the staves are put into 
the ark after it has been wrapped up : whereas, 



1 04 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

Exodus xxv, 15, says, "the staves shall not be 
taken from it." 

The apparent contradiction is explained by 
Exodus xxxvii, 5, where it is said Bezaleel " put 
the staves into the rings by the sides of the ark, 
to bear the ark ;" and Exodus xl, 20, which states 
that "he took and put the testimony into the 
ark, and set the staves on the ark." 

Num. iv, 6, means that, when the tabernacle 
was broken up and the ark packed for carrying, 
the staves were pulled out of the rings that the 
ark might be wrapped up; and that they were 
again put in their place when the ark was un- 
wrapped and set up again. 

30. According to Num. iv, 3, 23, the Levites 
do duty from the age of thirty to that of fifty ; 

but according to Num. viii, 24, 25, 
23, 30', 35'. 47, they serve from twenty-five to fifty 

and viii, 24, J J J 

25. years of age. 

The contradiction is removed, if we consider 
that chap, iv refers to the bearing and the trans- 
porting of the tabernacle through the wilderness; 
and that chap, viii refers to the service at wor- 
ship. Chap, viii, 22, says that the Levites went 
in "to do their service in the tabernacle of the 
congregation before Aaron and before his sons." 

31. According to Num. xiv, 45, the Amalekites 
and the Canaanites, on the southern boundary 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 105 

of Palestine, drove the Israelites back to Hor- 
mah ; but, according to Xum. xxi, 3, Numxiv45 . 
the Israelites smote the king of Arad andxxi > 3 - 
and the Canaanites, and named the place Hormah. 

Keil remarks : " The former event occurred 
in the second year of the exodus, and the latter 
in the fortieth; and it is by an intentional and 
significant prolepsis that the place already bears 
the name of Hormah in chap, xiv, 45." 

The name Hormah signifies " devoted to de- 
struction ;" and it may have been applied to more 
places than one. 

There are other passages which are alleged 
to be contradictory ; but they are very much of 
the same character with those which have been 
cited ; and the solutions of the apparent contra- 
dictions are similar to those which have been 
given. The explanations may not, in all cases, 
be satisfactory; and exceptions may be taken to 
them on the ground that they are made on the 
hypothesis of the unity of the Pentateuch. Be it 
so. Such a process is not less scientific and crit- 
ical than it is to assume, on the ground of diver- 
sity of statement or apparent contradictions, di- 
versity of authorship, and then to say, whenever 
an apparent contradiction occurs, that verse 28 a 
belongs to the Vor-Elohist, 28 bcd to the Elohist, 
2 b to the Elohist, and 2 a to the Jehovist. More- 



106 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

over, the critics contradict one another ; one say- 
ing, this passage belongs to the Elohist ; another, 
no, it belongs to the Jehovist. If all passages 
can be harmonized on the hypothesis of unity of 
authorship, is it not better than to admit con- 
tradictions on the hypothesis of a plurality of 
authors ? 

Section III. 

ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN THE CIRCLE OF IDEAS, AND IN THE 
USUS LOQUENDI ADVANCED AS PROOFS THAT THE PEN- 
TATEUCH PROCEEDED FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORS. 

An intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew 
language is necessary to understand this line of 
argument; and after wearisome processes and toil- 
some labor the results arrived at are very vague. 
They are so vague that the investigator will esti- 
mate them according to his foregone conclusions. 

1. The alleged fact of a diversity in the lan- 
guage and ideas of the Pentateuch underlies the 
hypothesis of two documents — the one 

Difference in ___ 

language and Elohistic, and the other Jehovistic— and 

ideas. . ,. 

to support that hypothesis the diver- 
sity has been greatly exaggerated. This hypoth- 
esis has been shown, in the two preceding sec- 
tions, to have a very slight foundation. To 
arrive at it, it is necessary to make artificial di- 
visions of the text, and to assume interpolations 



A GAINST MOSAIC A UTHOBSHIP. 107 

and retouchings of the so-called fundamental doc- 
ument of the hypothetical supplementer : 

" If the alleged fact of a diversity in the lan- 
guage and ideas of the Pentateuch were to be a 
criterion of diversity of authorship, it would be- 
come a valid proof of the hypothesis of supple- 
ments only in two ways : either, generally, if the 
fundamental document made a representation of 
primeval history and of patriarchal life which 
differed from the history of these times and 
these relations in the supplementary sections; 
or, in particular, if the peculiar ideas in the sup- 
posed different authors contradicted one another. 
Neither of these propositions has hitherto been 
proved to be true. The Elohist (the author of 
the fundamental document) does not give a sim- 
pler and less artificial representation of the relig- 
ious aspects of antiquity, its manners, and its 
arrangements of life than the Jehovist (supple- 
menter) ; and in depicting them he does not pre- 
sent ideas which would contradict the circle of 
ideas in which the supplementer moves." (KeiPs 
" Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. I, 
p. 122.) 

It would be very prolix and, consequently, 
tedious to present long lists of words said to be 
peculiar to the different authors. They can be 
found in Introductions to the books of the Pen- 



108 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

tateuch and in Critical Commentaries. In these, 
many instances of alleged interpolations of pas- 
sages said to be retouched, and of different rep- 
resentations of antiquity, are exhibited. But on 
examination it will be found that most of the 
ideas, which are adduced as peculiar to the fund- 
amental document, or characteristic of the Elo- 
hist, occur also in the supplementer, or, at least, 
agree with his ideas. In the same way, ideas 
which are said to be peculiar to the supplementer 
are partly found in the fundamental document, 
too, or are wanting only because in the portions 
assigned to it no occasion is presented for men- 
tioning them ; and, moreover, they are not con- 
stant enough or are much too seldom used to be 
of any value as distinguishing characteristics. 
Even the ideas which do occur only in the one 
or other class of sections in the Pentateuch, fur- 
nish no proofs of two different composers, for 
the reason that they are neutralized by other 
ideas, not less peculiar, which occur in both. 
(See Keil's " Introduction to the Old Testament/' 
Yol. I, pp. 122-127.) 

The reasoning founded on the alleged diver- 
sity just mentioned is fallacious. It is the fallacy 
called reasoning in a circle. The existence of 
different sets of words and phrases furnishes the 
hypothesis of different authors; and then to 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 109 

group these words and phrases into different sets 
the narrative is broken up in a fantastic way into 
fragments which are assigned to these authors 
respectively. 

Is it antecedently probable that chapters and 
narratives in the Pentateuch are a patch-work 
such as many modern critics pronounce them to 
be? To most readers they appear consecutive 
and homogeneous; aud it requires something more 
than bare assertion and an ingeniously selected 
list of words and phrases to convince them that 
these narratives are to be cut up into minute por- 
tions and assigned to the fundamental document 
or to the supplementary document, to the Vor- 
Elohist, to the Elohist, or to the Jehovist, as the 
case may be. Until the critics themselves are 
agreed as to the passages which are to be thus 
assigned, it is safe to conclude that the diversity 
can not be so great as they represent it to be. 

2. In respect to the usus loquendi no such dif- 
ferences can be proved to exist in the different 
sections of the Pentateuch as to indi- Usus ]o _ 
cate diversity of authorship. Discur- quendi. 

siveness, circumstantiality of narrative, and repe- 
titions are peculiarities of ancient Shemitic his- 
torical writing ; and where they are prominent 
they can be explained by the subject-matter of 
the narratives, their tendency, and their tone. 



110 THE PENTATEUCH. 

We may admit that there are traces of differ- 
ence of style, and yet deny that this fact is any 
proof of difference of authorship. We find many 
parallel cases in literature in which difference of 
style does not warrant the assumption of a differ- 
ent author. Style varies with the subject; and 
often a writer is not at all times equally careful. 
Homer,* Shakespeare, and Milton furnish exam- 
ples of this in their works. 

Section IV. 

ALLEGED WANT OP UNITY IN THE PENTATEUCH ADDUCED AS 
A PROOF OP PLURALITY OF AUTHORSHIP. 

Divide et impera — divide and rule— was an 
old Roman maxim. The Romans applied it to 
government. The same maxim has, in modern 
times, been adopted in destructive criticism. 

Wolff applied it to the Iliad and the Odyssey 
and announced to the literary world that they 
were a collection of separate lays, by different 
authors, arranged and put together for the first 
time during the administration and by the order 
of Pisistratus. It was admitted by his opponents 
that these poems furnish evidence of the prior 
existence of lays and legends of the ballad kind ; 
but, notwithstanding this admission, they proved 

* Indignor, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.— Horace, Epis. 
ad Pisones, v. 359. 



CO MP OSITION AND A TJTHORSIIIP. Ill 

that a single poet, called Homer, compiled from 
these lays and legends two consistent and harmo- 
nious poems. 

In the same way, it is asserted by some Bib- 
lical critics that different accounts of the same 
thing and repetitions occur in the Pentateuch, 
and that these are a sure mark of at least two 
authors. The occurrence of double narratives 
renders the hypothesis of two independent and 
continuous histories plausible ; but the attempt 
to assign one of these double narratives to the 
Elohist and the other to the Jehovist, breaks 
down, from time to time, by the confession of 
the critics themselves. 

On the hypothesis adopted by some, that there 
was only one original, continuous history, subse- 
quently interpolated, the objection against unity of 
authorship, drawn from double narratives, falls to 
the ground. But, on this hypothesis, it is difficult 
to understand why an editor or redactor should 
confuse and disfigure a clear narrative by interpo- 
lating passages which have the appearance of rep- 
etitions, unless the events did really occur the 
second time. 

In explanation of some of these repetitions, it 
may be proper to refer to a peculiarity of the 
Hebrew language. Where the Aryan languages 
prefer to make a mere reference, the simple and 



112 • THE PENTATEUCH. 

uninvolved style of thought, which characterizes 
the Semitic languages, to which Hebrew belongs, 
repeats what has been already said or written. 
We express a complex proposition by a com- 
pound sentence, in which the subordinate mem- 
bers are introduced and kept in their true place 
by relative pronouns and conjunctions; but the 
Hebrew language uses simple sentences and unites 
statements by the conjunction " and," to which 
translators assign a variety of meanings. Thus 
repetitions sometimes become necessary. 

An explanation has already been given of 
some double narratives, showing that they are 
not inconsistent with unity of authorship, that 
one supplements or limits the other. But it is 
not enough to establish unity of authorship by 
proving that it is not inconsistent with repeti- 
tions and double narratives. It is necessary to 
show the organic unity of the whole Pentateuch. 
This is not difficult to be done. Unity is visible 
in the whole plan and execution of the work. 
It is clearly seen from the chronological order 
which runs through the five books and unites 
their parts together, that is, from their external 
unity ; and also from their internal unity, as parts 
of an organic whole. 

The chronological order of these books begins 
with the creation of man ; and it is very cohe- 



COMP OSITION AND A UTJH ORSHIP. 113 

rent, definite, and exact. It is what may be 
called chronologico-genealogical, con- External 
necting the computation of time with oio^cLiOTdSr 
the life-time of the Patriarchs, or of the books ' 
rather with the time between the birth of the 
father and the birth of the son named in the ge- 
nealogical table, who may not always have been 
either the first-born son or the first-born child.* 

The fifth chapter of Genesis furnishes us with 
the chronological data from Adam to Shem, or to 
the five hundredth year of Noah's life. Chapter 
vii, 6, gives the time from the latter date until 
the flood. Comparing this data with that given 
in chap, viii, 13, 14, we find the duration of the 
flood. In chap, xi, 10-26 (compare verse 32), 
are contained the chronological data from the 
flood to Abraham. Chap, xxi, 5, brings the 
chronology down to the birth of Isaac ; chap, xxv, 
26, to the birth of Jacob ; and xlvii, 9, to the 
time of the migration of the children of Israel 
into Egypt. 

Exodus xii, 40, 41, gives the duration of their 
stay in Egypt.f This passage gives the month 
and the day of their departure from Egypt, be- 

*Havernick says "the first-born;" but this is very improbable in 
every instance. It was not so in the case of Terah and Abram. This 
is evident on comparing Gen. xi, 26, 32, and xii, 4. 

fThe four hundred and thirty years may date from the promise 
made to Abraham and end at the Exodus, or at the giving of the Law 
from Mt. Sinai (See Gal. iii, 17). Some versions favor this view. 

8 



114 THE PENTATEUCH. 

cause that day constituted the commencement of 
the era according to which all subsequent events 
of great importance were determined. (Exodus 
xvi, 1 ; xix, 1 ; xl, 17 ; Num. i, 1, 18 ; xxxiii, 
38; Deut. i, 3; 1 Kings vi, 1.) Deut. i, 3 (com- 
pare Josh, v, 6), gives the time of their wander- 
ing in the wilderness. 

The question of the correctness of the Penta- 
teuch chronology has no place here. Correct or 
incorrect, it furnishes proof of external unity, 
and this external unity affords a strong presump- 
tion of unity of authorship. 

But its internal unity, proving its organic 
character, affords a still stronger presumption. 
Indeed, it seems impossible to account for it, 
except on the hypothesis that the whole Penta- 
teuch came from the hand of a single author. 
This internal unity will now be briefly ex- 
hibited. 

The central point of the Pentateuch is the 
covenant made, through Moses, between Jehovah 
and his people. Every thing, in the Pentateuch, 
before the time of Moses was preparatory to that 
covenant; and every thing, in the same book, 
internal during his time, was a development of 

unity - it. By this it is not meant that its 

development came to a close at the death of Mo- 
ses; but only that the books of Exodus, Leviti- 






COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. H5 

cus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy give a history 
of it up to that time. 

The national covenant, made at Sinai, was 
preceded by and founded on the Abrahamic cov- 
enant recorded in Genesis. This covenant finds 
its explanation in the previous history, which is 
accordingly given by the sacred historian. Be- 
fore the time of Abraham there was, properly 
speaking, no visible Church. Before the flood 
the whole earth had become corrupt. All man- 
kind were swept away by that catastrophe, with 
the exception of Noah and his family. Never- 
theless, the new world followed the example of 
the old. In the days of Abraham we read that 
polytheism and idolatry existed ; and ignorance 
was becoming universal. The time had come 
for a new economy — an economy of particularism 
instead of universalism, but with ultimate refer- 
ence to the salvation of the world. Abraham 
was called and a covenant was made with him, 
that in him all the families of the earth should 
be blessed. (Gen. xii, 3.) In order to understand 
this covenant, and the Mosaic economy, also, the 
history, contained in the book of Genesis, is nec- 
essary. For, as Havernick properly remarks, 
" With the history of the world's origin begins 
the history of Israel. That might be thought to 
arise from the fashion of the East, which is fond 



116 THE PENTA TE UCH. 

of commencing its special history ah ovo. There- 
fore, it must here be shown whether that com- 
mencement is only loosely prefixed from regard 
to custom or stands connected with the whole by 
a deeper reason. Now the work of creation, in 
its fundamental plan, at once proclaims itself as 
intimately connected with the Theocracy. It is 
not any sort of isolated law, insignificant in rela- 
tion to the whole, that is brought out by the 
consecration here conferred on the number of 
seven ; but the whole of the formal structure of 
the Theocracy itself, in its consistent carrying 
out of this sacred cycle of time, is closely con- 
joined with it. Viewed from its internal side, 
the fundamental idea of the Theocracy, to be 
holy like to the holy God, and the consecration 
of the people, the priestly family, etc., arising 
thence, can be apprehended only in their relation 
to the beginning of the human race, and its orig- 
inal relation to God; so that the Theocracy is 
connected with Gen. i, 27, as the restoration of 
that which formerly subsisted." (" Introduction 
to the Pentateuch," p. 25. Edinburgh : T. & T. 
Clark. 1850.) 

Gen. i, 27, reveals to us the original destina- 
tion of man; and it represents the human race, 
in its origin, as a unit related to God as its Cre- 
ator and Euler. By the Fall, it became sepa- 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 117 

rated from God ; but it still continued to be 
the object of his care and the possessor of his 
promise. 

It was necessary, therefore, that a history of 
the Theocracy should begin with the origin of 
man. Apart from man's origin and destination 
the Theocracy is inexplicable. 

Hence, the Pentateuch begins with the book 
of Origins. Genesis narrates : 

I. The Origin of Heaven and Earth. 
II. The Origin of the Human Race. 

III. The Origin of Sin in the World. 

IV. The Origin of Sacrifice. 

V. The Origin of Covenant Promises. 

VI. The Origin of Nations and Languages. 
VII. The Origin of the Hebrew Nation. 

The early history of the world, until the time 
of Abraham, is very brief. From Noah, the 
second father of the human family, every thing 
hastens on the history of Abraham's call from 
Ur of the Chaldees and his entrance into Ca- 
naan, which were a preparation for Mosaism. 
To him a special blessing, in his seed, upon all 
the nations of the earth, was promised ; and the 
land of Canaan was assigned to his posterity, 
through Isaac, as a possession. 

The character of Abraham was peculiar and 
typically theocratical. The offices of the Theoc- 



118 THE PENT A TE TICK. 

racy appeared united in him. He is called a 
prophet (Gen. xx, 7); he acted as a priest by- 
building altars and offering sacrifices ; and to 
him as king, God gave the land of Canaan in 
perpetual possession. 

The history of Abraham is written in a theo- 
cratic spirit; and from his time until the death 
of Moses, the Pentateuch is confined to the his- 
tory of the theocratic people. 

The history communicates little of the quiet, 
uneventful life of Isaac ; but it gives many de- 
tails of the life of Jacob, the progenitor of the 
twelve tribes. The history of Joseph, with the 
exception of some particulars relating to the fam- 
ily of Judah (Gen. xxxviii), follows next, which 
prepares for the emigration of the children of 
Israel to Egypt, where Jacob died after he had 
blessed his sons and made to them the prophetic 
announcement that their descendants should pos- 
sess the land which they had left. 

The preparatory part of the theocratic history 
ceases with Joseph, and remains silent until the 
time of Moses, the leader and law-giver of God's 
chosen people. 

The book of Exodus begins with a distinct 
reference to that of Genesis, and is unintelligible 
apart from it. The early history of Moses is then 
briefly given. And when " the children of Israel 



COMPOSITION AND AUTHORSHIP. 119 

sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, 
and their cry came up unto God by reason of 
their bondage," then, " God heard their groan- 
ing, and God remembered his covenant with 
Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And 
God looked upon the children of Israel, and 
God had respect unto them." (Ex. ii, 23-25.) 

Then follows the history of their deliverance 
and of their journey to Sinai. At Sinai they re- 
ceived the law, by which they were constituted a 
theocratic nation. 

God now proceeds with his people on a strictly 
pedagogic plan. The Decalogue, as the funda- 
mental law, stands first ; and the other laws, both 
civil and ceremonial, are framed to carry out its 
principles. The whole national life was to be 
imbued with the spirit of the law; and all the 
institutions growing out of it were intended to 
remind the people that they should be holy, be- 
cause Jehovah, their God, is holy. 

The theocracy required that God should dwell 
among his people. Hence, Moses was com- 
manded to make a tabernacle to be a meeting- 
place between God and them. The building of 
the tabernacle, with all its appurtenances, is given 
with great minuteness of detail. But a taber- 
nacle, with appointments for religious worship, 
required ministers of religion. The history, ac- 



120 THE PENT A TE TJCH. 

cordingly, gives an account of the designation of 
Aaron and his sons to the office of the priest- 
hood, with a description of their "holy gar- 
ments " and of the ceremonies to be used at their 
consecration. 

The book of Leviticus presupposes Exodus by 
a direct reference to the tabernacle from which 
the Lord speaks to Moses. The laws of sacrifice 
form the commencement of the book, in which 
their general nature is described, their division 
into bloody and unbloody, their objects, and the 
time, place, and manner of their presentation. 
Then follows the consecration of Aaron and his 
sons to the priesthood. The tabernacle or 
sanctuary having been made the center of the 
whole nation, the remainder of the book pre- 
scribes the laws of cleanness and uncleanness; 
and nature and all animal life are made to fur- 
nish a testimony of the defilement of sin and of 
the holiness of Jehovah. 

The book of Numbers also begins with a ref- 
erence to the tabernacle, and embraces a period 
of thirty-eight years. Its contents are of a mis- 
cellaneous character, history and legislation alter- 
nating with each other in the order of time. In 
the history of these thirty-eight years there are 
three salient points. The first is- the departure 
from Sinai ; the preparations for which, the order 



COMPOSITION AND A UTHORSHIP. 121 

of march, and the incidents of the journey to the 
wilderness of Paran are described in the first 
twelve chapters. The second is the sending of 
the spies to search the land of Canaan, and the 
rebellion of the people on hearing their report. 
This was in the second year of the exodus. Of 
the events that follow, until the third point, we 
have only a brief notice. The third begins with 
the second arrival of the children of Israel at 
Kadesh, and continues the history until their 
arrival "in the plains of Moab by Jordan near 
Jericho." 

The book of Deuteronomy forms a natural 
close to the preceding books. It is an appropri- 
ate farewell address of Moses, the great law-giver 
and leader, whom God had appointed to guide 
his people from Egypt to Canaan. That great 
man having, by divine direction, appointed 
Joshua his successor, recapitulated to the people, 
whom he had guided to the border of the Holy 
Land, their past history ; repeated, with exhorta- 
tions to obedience, the law given at Sinai; pro- 
nounced blessings and curses as motives to obe- 
dience ; and then retired to Mount Nebo to die. 

From this rapid sketch it is evident that the 
Pentateuch is a continuous history — a whole. 
Genesis is inseparable as an introduction, Deu- 
teronomy as a close. 



122 THE PENTATEUCH. 

It is evident, also, that the fragmentary theory, 
which disintegrates the Pentateuch into a mass 
of innumerable fragments, has no foundation. 
This theory, however, has been abandoned by 
the ablest critics; and the documentary has been 
transformed into the supplementary, which ac- 
knowledges a unity of plan in the Pentateuch, but 
denies that it existed there from the first; and 
not only supposes that the Pentateuch came into 
existence by the process of working up interpo- 
lations and supplements into the fundamental 
document, but also attempts to determine these 
twofold elements in the individual instances. 

A formal discussion of this theory will not be 
attempted. While it may be admitted that inter- 
polations and supplements may have occasionally 
been made by sacred writers subsequent to Moses, 
yet, as a theory to account for the composition 
of the Pentateuch, it is wholly unnecessary. The 
sequel will confirm this statement. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 123 



CHAPTER III. 

EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES WHICH ASSIGN THE 
PENTATEUCH TO A LATER DATE THAN THE 
TIME OF MOSES. 

Section I. 

SINGLE PASSAGES, WHICH POINT TO HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTAN- 
CES BELONGING TO A LATER TIME THAN THAT OF MO- 
SES, AND YET PRESUPPOSE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES 
AS EXISTING AT THE TIME OP THE AUTHOR.* 

1. " And the Canaanite was then in the 
land." (Gen. xii, 6.) 

Bleek says : " It can not be denied that this 
'then' refers to a date of authorship when the 
Canaanite was not in the land. . . . The re- 
mark is natural only if made at a time 

, , n , .11 Gen. xii, 6. 

when that tact no longer existed, there- 
fore after the taking possession of the land by 
the Israelites." 

Davidson : " These words obviously imply, 
that when the writer lived the Canaanites had 
been expelled from the land." 

*Bleek's "Introduction to the Old Testament," Vol. i, p. 229ff. 
London : Bell & Daldy. 1869. Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch, 
pp. 97-104. 



124 THE PENTA TE UCH. 

Three general opinions have been expressed 
as to the import of the " then " in that verse : 

(a) The Canaanite was already in the land 
when Abraham entered it. 

(b) The Canaanite was yet, or still, in the land 
at that time. 

(c) The Canaanite was actually in the land. 
If (a) is admissible, the difficulty vanishes. 

The same may be said of (c). The difficulty is 
with (6). 

But why should the use of " then " be, ac- 
cording to Bleek, "natural only if made at a 
time when that fact [the possession of the land 
by the Canaanites] no longer existed, therefore, 
after the taking possession of the land by the Is- 
raelites?" Was it not natural for the historian, 
whether Moses or any other person, to mention 
the inhabitants of the land just at the time when 
Abraham and his descendants came into histor- 
ical contact with them? May the statement not 
imply that Abraham could not enter upon the 
immediate possession of the land because it was 
inhabited by the Canaanites? or may it not as- 
sign a reason why he was obliged to pass through 
the land to Sichem to find a place of residence? 
Or does the hypothesis, that it came from a later 
hand, invalidate the generally received opinion 
that Moses wrote the book of Genesis? It may 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 125 

have been added by an editor or redactor, say 
one of the prophets, to whom the conservation, 
revision, and continuation of the sacred writings 
were committed. It is not an unusual thing for 
editors, in modern times, to append notes to 
works which they edit, placing them in brackets, 
with their initials, or in the margin. The ancient 
editors, as is evident from the last chapter of 
Deuteronomy, and other passages, put their notes 
in the text without their names. 

2. Gen. xiii, 7 : " And the Canaan- Gen - xm > 7 - 
ite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land." 

The explanation of this passage is the same 
as that of the preceding. 

3. Gen. xii, 8 ; " And he removed from thence 
unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched 
his tent, having Bethel on the west and Hai on 
the east." 

Bishop Colenso remarks : " The familiar use 
of the name Bethel in this passage, 
and in Gen. xiii, 3, in the story of 
Abraham's life — a name which was not given to 
the place till Jacob's day (Gen. xxviii, 19) — be- 
trays the later hand of one, who wrote when the 
place was spoken of naturally by this name as a 
well-known town." 

The bishop will admit that Moses lived some 
centuries after Jacob, in whose day Luz, as the 



126 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

bishop acknowledges, received the name of Bethel. 
Jacob would naturally transmit this name to his 
posterity; and Moses would likely prefer it to 
Luz. The fact that he calls the town Bethel in 
the history of Abraham creates no more difficulty 
than a historian of New York City would do by 
applying its present name to it, instead of New 
Amsterdam, which it bore in the time of the 
Dutch. No fair-minded reader would cavil at 
such a use of the name. 

4. Gen. xiii, 10 : " And Lot lifted up his eyes, 
and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was 
well watered everywhere, even as the garden of 
Jehovah, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest 
to Zoar." 

Bishop Colenso observes : " This is supposed 

to have been written for the instruction, in the 

first instance, of the Hebrews in the 

Gen. xiii, 10. 

wilderness. But what could they have 
known of the nature of the country in the land 
of Canaan, as thou comest unto Zoar?" (Gen. 
xix, 22.) 

The objection is founded on the bishop's igno- 
rance. Many of the Hebrews may have pos- 
sessed more geographical knowledge than he is 
disposed to concede. Is every writer, who writes 
for the instruction of his readers, careful to limit 
himself, in his writings, to their geographical and 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 127 

historical knowledge? Perhaps the bishop him- 
self, in his Avritings for the instruction of the 
Zulus, may sometimes go beyond, in his state- 
ments, their historical and geographical knowl- 
edge. 

5. Gen. xiv, 14 : "And pursued them unto Dan." 
Bishop Colenso says : " The place was not 
named Dan till long after the time of Moses. 
For we read, ' The coasts of the chil- 

? , Gen. xiv, 14. 

dren of Dan went out too little for 
them. Therefore the children of Dan went up 
to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote 
it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, 
and dwelt therein, and called Leshem Dan, after 
the name of Dan their father." (Josh, xix, 47.) 

Further, in Judges xviii, we have the whole 
transaction detailed at length. And at the end 
it is added (verse 29), "And they called the name 
of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their fa- 
ther ; howbeit the name of the city was Laish at 
the first." 

Four explanations of this passage have been 
attempted : 

(a) That another place of the same name is 
intended. 

(b) That it is a prophetic anticipation, by the 
sacred historian, of a name which was not to 
exist till centuries later. 



128 THE PENTATEUCH. 

(c) That the original contained an older name, 
Laish ; and that when that name was superseded 
by Dan, the new name was inserted in the man- 
uscripts. 

(d) Dr. Murphy says : " This name is found 
in the Hebrew, Samaritan, Septuagint, and On- 
kelos. It might naturally be supposed that the 
sacred reviser of the text had inserted it here, 
had we not grounds for a contrary supposition. 
The custom of the reviser was to add the other 
name without altering the original ; of which we 
have several examples in this very chapter (vs. 2, 
3, 7, 8, 17). We are, therefore, led to regard 
Dan as in use at the time of Abram. Held at 
that remote period, perhaps, by some Hebrew, it 
fell at length into the hands of the Sidonians 
(Judges xviii), who named it Laish (lion) and 
Leshem (ligure). Names of places in that Eastern 
land vary, from a slight resemblance in sound 
(paronomasia), a resemblance in sense (synonyms), 
a change of masters, or some other cause. Laish 
and Leshem are significant names, partly alike in 
sound, and applied to the same town. They took 
the place of Dan when the town changed masters. 
The recollection of its ancient name and story 
may have attracted the Danites to the place, who 
burned Laish and built a new city, which they 
again called Dan." - 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 129 

Of these explanations, which are all hypo- 
thetical, perhaps c, which is that of Ewald, is to 
be preferred, though there is force in Dr. Mur- 
phy's objection to it. 

Dr. Smith ("The Book of Moses or the Pen- 
tateuch ;" London : Longmans, Green & Co. 1868 ; 
pp. 445-454.) mentions various circumstances 
corroborative of the view that derives the name 
Dan from a Phoenician god. " The Arabic trans- 
lation of the name into El-Kady, meaning the 
Judge or Ruler" he observes, " is certainly 
founded on the idea that Dan here had more the 
nature of an appellative, like Baal, than of a 
proper name." In view of all the " various cir- 
cumstances," which he mentions, he concludes : 
" We can hardly be wrong in assuming that at 
Laish or Leshem there was a sanctuary of Pan- 
Adonis-Eshmun before it became an Israelitic 
town. And on that supposition, the appropriate- 
ness of the name Dan, even in those early days, 
at once appears." 

6. Gen. xiii, 8: "Then Abraham removed his 
tent, and came and dwelt in the plain 

r> tv r i • i • • tt i i Gen - xiii ' 8 - 

ot Mam re, which is in Hebron, and 
built there an altar unto the Lord." 

(a) Bleek remarks : " We read, on the con- 
trary (Josh, xiv, 15; xv, 13), that it did not re- 
ceive this name till a later time, and had been 
9 



130 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

previously called Kirjath-Arba. But this change 
of name does not appear to have taken place be- 
fore the age of Joshua; and we are induced to 
assume that this mention could not have been 
made before this time (cf. Gen. xxiii, 2 ; xxxv, 27), 
where the city is pointed out as Kirjath-Arba 
(that is, Hebron)." 

(6) Baumgarten is of the opinion that " its 
earliest name was Hebron, but it was later called 
Kirjath-Arba by the sons of Anak. When the 
Israelites came into the possession of the land, 
they restored the original patriarchal name. 
(Lange's Commentary, in loc.) 

Kurtz (" History of the Old Covenant," Vol. I, 
p. 215) expresses the same view. So also Haver- 
nick ("Introduction to the Pentateuch," p. 145). 
Hengstenberg is quoted to the same effect by 
one of the translators and editors of Lange on 
Genesis. 

7. Gen. xxxvi, 31 : " And these are the kings 
that reigned in the land of Edom, be- 

Gen.xxxvi,31. ° . 

fore there reigned any king over the 
children of Israel." 

A series of eight kings follows. 

If we suppose that Moses is the author of 
Genesis, there is ample time between Esau and 
him, or between the emigration of the Israelites 
from Canaan to Egypt and the Exodus, for eight 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 131 

reigns of twenty-five or thirty years each. The 
very shortest time is 215 years, and some make 
it 430. 

The expression, " before there reigned any 
king over the children of Israel," does not imply 
that monarchy began in Israel immediately after 
these kings ; as Lot's beholding the vale of Jor- 
dan to be well watered before the Lord destroyed 
Sodom and Gomorrah, does not imply that the 
cities were destroyed immediately after Lot be- 
held this sight. (Gen. xiii, 10.) Nor does it im- 
ply that monarchy in Israel had begun in the 
time of the writer; as Isaac's saying, "That my 
soul may bless thee before I die " (Gen. xxvii, 4), 
does not imply that he was dead at the time of 
his saying so. It merely implies that Israel was 
expected to have kings (Gen. xxxv, 11), as Isaac 
was expected to die." (Murphy's Commentary on 
Genesis, in loc.) 

8. Gen. xxxix, 14 : " See, he hath brought in 
a Hebrew unto us to mock us." (Compare v. 17.) 
Gen. xl, 15 : " For indeed I was stolen away out 
of the land of the Hebrews." (Compare xli, 12.) 

Abraham is called the Hebrew. (Gen. xiv, 13.) 
His descendants, in the line of Isaac, were still 
called Hebrews, instead of Israelites. Gen yyy . y 
(xliii, 32.) Joseph says, "I was stolen 14 - 
away out of the land of the Hebrews." But, 



1 32 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

avers the objector, the land was not occupied by 
the Hebrews at this time, and, consequently, was 
not called by their name. It was known as the 
land of Canaan. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
however, acquired something like permanent pos- 
sessions in it; and Joseph knew that, according 
to divine promise, it belonged to the Hebrews. 
Had he said, " I was stolen out of the land of 
Canaan," he would, very naturally, have been 
taken as a Canaanite, which he probably did not 
wish to be considered. 

9. Exodus vi, 26, 27 : " These are that Moses 
and Aaron," etc. 

Exodus xi, 3 : " Moreover the man Moses was 

very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of 

Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight 

Ex. vi, 26, 27. n, i . -, „ 

Ex. xi, 3. of his people." 

Num. xii, 3. ->-,. „ _ „ >T ,, ,, 

Num. xv,22,23. JNum. xn, 3: " .Now the man Mo- 

Deut.xxxiii.l. 

ses was very meek, above all the men 
which were upon the face of the earth." 

Num. xv, 22, 23 : " And ye have erred and 
not observed all these commandments, which Je- 
hovah hath spoken unto Moses," etc. 

Deut. xxxiii, 1 : " This is the blessing, where- 
with Moses, the man of God, blessed the children 
of Israel before his death." 

Bishop Colenso remarks : " It can scarcely be 
doubted that such statements as the above must 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 133 

have been written by some one who lived in an 
age after that of Moses." 

It is quite possible. It may be admitted that 
some of them were written by a redactor or an 
editor, and yet the admission would not affect 
the Mosaic authorship of the books in which 
they occur. But such an admission is not 
necessary. 

The first (Exodus vi, 26, 27) may assign a 
reason for inserting the genealogy of the families 
of Levi in that place ; and the enumeration of 
four generations may point to Gen. xv, 16. 

The second (Exodus xi, 3) accounts for the 
willingness with which the Egyptians gave up 
their jewels of gold and silver to the Israelites. 
The former probably knew that Moses had com- 
manded the latter to ask for these things; and 
the knowledge of that fact prompted them to 
comply with alacrity. The first clause of the 
verse says, " the Lord gave the people favor in 
the sight of the Egyptians ;" but this does not 
exclude the personal influence of Moses. Why, 
then, should he not, as a historian, relate what is 
necessary to understand the transaction? 

The third (Num. xii, 3) is a vindication of 
Moses against the sedition of Miriam and Aaron ; 
and intimates that he did not avenge himself, but 
committed his justification to God. Paul says 



134 THE PENT A TE VCR. 

(2 Cor. xi, 5), " I suppose I was not a whit 

behind the very chiefest apostles 

Are they ministers of Christ ? (I speak as a fool) 
I am more" (v. 23). Does any one deny Paul's 
authorship of 2 Corinthians, because he indulges 
in this boasting strain ? Every one sees that it 
was necessary to the vindication of himself 
against the aspersions of his enemies. Why not 
allow the same in the case of Moses? 

The fourth (Num. xv, 22, 23) speaks of Moses 
in the third person, which is generally used in 
reference to him. Both sacred and profane wri- 
ters speak of themselves in this way. Csesar 
speaks of himself in the third person; and so 
does Thucydides in the very first sentence of his 
history. 

The fifth (Deut. xxxiii, 1) may be an interpo- 
lation by the editor; and yet such a supposition 
is unnecessary ; for the phrase, " before his death" 
may have been written by Moses himself. He 
knew that he was about to die; and this fact 
would give a greater solemnity to his words and 
make a deeper impression upon the people. 

10. Exodus x, 19: "And the Lord turned a 
mighty strong west wind, which took 
away the locusts, and cast them into 
the Eed Sea." 

" For west wind," remarks Bishop Colenso, 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 135 

"the original of the passage has wind of the sea, 
that is, of course, the Mediterranean Sea, from 
which westerly winds blew over the land of Ca- 
naan, but not over Egypt. This expression, 
obviously, could not have been familiarly used in 
this way till some time after the people were set- 
tled in the land of Canaan, when they would 
naturally employ ' wind of the sea/ ' seaward/ to 
express i west-wind/ ' westward.' " 

Bishop Colenso requires too great a degree of 
exactness in the statements of the Pentateuch. 
He seems to forget that it was written for popu- 
lar, not scientific, instruction. He should bear 
in mind that the Hebrews recognized the exist- 
ence of four prevailing winds as issuing, broadly 
speaking, from the four cardinal points — north, 
south, east, west. Hence arose their custom of 
using the expression, " four winds," as equivalent 
to the " four quarters " of the earth. (Ezekiel 
xxxvii, 9 ; Dan. viii, 8 ; Zech. ii, 6 ; Matt, xxiv, 
31.) Any wind, from a westward direction, be- 
tween the points of the compass, N. and S., would 
be called by the Hebrews a westward direction. 
A wind blowing from the 1ST. W. toward the S. E. 
would be called a west wind, and it would pro- 
duce the effect stated in this verse. 

Moreover, the term seaward may have been 
used in Canaan to designate the west before the 



136 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

children of Israel went down into Egypt; and 
they may have continued the use of it in Egypt, 
though its primary meaning was no longer appro- 
priate. There are analogies in other languages to 
show that a secondary meaning entirely supplants 
a primary. 

11. Exodus xvi, 35: "And the children of 
Israel did eat manna forty years, until 

Ex. xvi, 35. . • -, • 

they came to a land inhabited ; they 
did eat manna until they came unto the borders 
of the land of Canaan." 

Bishop Colenso thinks that "this verse could 
not have been written till after they had ceased 
eating manna, which, we are told, took place on 
the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn 
of the land." (Josh, v, 12.) 

In this opinion Bishop Colenso is probably 
correct ; though Moses, with the knowledge that 
the manna would cease, after the Israelites had 
entered the land of Canaan, might have writ- 
ten it. 

12. Lev. xviii, 28 : " That the land 

Lev. xviii, 28. 

spew not you out also, when ye defile 
it, as it spewed out the nations that were be- 
fore you." 

This verse implies, it is said, that the nations 
of Canaan had been already spewed out ; and con- 
sequently it must have been written after the 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 137 

time of Moses. But if the reader goes back to 
verse 24, he will find that the sacred writer uses 
the participle meshalleach, casting out, or about to 
cast out, denoting the proximate future. That 
verse, therefore, reads, when literally translated, 
" Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things : 
for in all these the nations are defiled, which I 
am casting out [or am about to cast out] before 
you." The whole transaction is represented as 
one in progress. AVe can not, therefore, infer 
that the casting out of the Canaan ites was al- 
ready an accomplished fact. 

13. Num. xv, 32-36: "And while the chil- 
dren of Israel were in the wilderness, they found 
a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. 
And they that found him gathering sticks brought 
him unto Moses." 

Bleek observes (" Introduction to the Old 
Testament," Vol. I, p. 232): " ' TJie wilderness' 
can only refer to the Arabian desert. Num 
But this mode of expression presup- 32 ~ 36 - 
poses that these words were written when they 
were no longer in the wilderness, and, therefore, 
point to a later age." 

In verses 30, 31, the sacred historian speaks 
of presumptuous sins, and adduces the incident 
of the Sabbath-breaker (v. 32) as an illustra- 
tion. It seems that the punishment for such 



138 THE PENTATEUCH. 

acts of transgression had not yet been defined ; 
and when the man was brought to Moses, he was 
put in ward, until the Lord should indicate what 
punishment should be inflicted upon him. The 
incident occurred in the wilderness; but Bleek 
thinks that Moses, on the supposition that he was 
the author, would not have introduced it in this 
shape. The objection is made from a subjective 
stand-point; and yet it seems, at first sight, plaus- 
ible. At the same time Moses — assuming that he 
was the author — might wish to relate not only 
the occasion of the offense and its punishment, 
but also the place where the sin was committed 
and its penalty defined. It furnishes a proof of 
the strictness with which the law of the Sabbath 
was enforced even in the wilderness, where cir- 
cumstances would naturally favor its violation. 

14. Deut. i, 1 : " These be the words which 
Moses spake unto all Israel, on this side Jordan, 
in the plain," etc. 

"On the assumption of a Mosaic authorship," 
says Bleek (" Introduction to the Old Testa- 
ment," Vol. i, p. 233), ' b e ebher hayyar- 
den has been translated ' this side of 
Jordan/ but this can not be justified by the usage 
of the language." He adds, " If Moses himself 
were the author, standing, as he did, on the east- 
ern bank of the river, he certainly would not 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 139 

have used the expression except for the land 
westward of Jordan, the actual Canaan." 

The phrase b e ebher hayyarden was a standing 
designation for the district east of the Jordan; 
and in times when Greek was commonly spoken 
in the country, it was exactly represented by the 
proper name Persea. It was used irrespectively 
of the actual position of the speaker or writer, 
just as " seaward," or "from the sea," was used 
for the west. (Compare Exodus x, 19.) It had, 
probably, been settled by the usage of the Ca- 
naanites in very early times ; and passed from 
them to the patriarchs and the Jews generally. 
Yet along with this conventional use the natural 
one is still found ; and the phrase is used of both 
sides of the river. (Gen. 1, 10, 11; Josh, ix, 1; 
Num. xxii, 1 ; xxxii, 32 ; Deut. iii, 8, 20. 25.) 
The immediate context will usually determine the 
sense of the phrase which is thus in itself ambig- 
uous; but sometimes a qualifying addition is 
made to determine it. (Compare chap, iv, 41 ; 
Josh, xxii, 7.) In Num. xxxii, 19, the transjor- 
danic tribes use a phrase nearly identical with 
the one before us, first for their own territory, 
and then for that of their brethren ; but add 
terms to explain the meaning. It is evident, 
from a mere inspection of the passages in which 
the phrase is used, that no inference can be drawn 



140 THE PENTATEUCH. 

from them as to whether the writer of Deuteron- 
omy dwelt on the one side of the Jordan or the 
other. (See the Bible Commentary, in loo.) 

15. Deut. ii, 12 : " The Horims also dwelt in 
Seir beforetime ; but the children of Esau suc- 
ceeded them, when they had destroyed them from 
before them, and dwelt in their stead ; as Israel 
did unto the land of his possession, which the 
Lord gave unto them." 

The words, " As Israel did unto the land of 

his possession," are understood to refer to the 

conquest of the land of Canaan as a 

Deut. ii, 12. _ _ 

past transaction. I he reader would 
naturally make, at the first glance, such a refer- 
ence of them. The context renders this doubt- 
ful (vs. 13-37). These words were spoken after 
the Israelites had taken possession of the country 
east of the Jordan. The passage does not state 
that Israel had expelled the inhabitants from Ca- 
naan, but from "the land of his possession;" and 
Gilead and Bashan, east of the Jordan, were part 
of this possession. May the passage, therefore, not 
refer to the territory east of the Jordan, which 
had been already subdued? 

16. Deut. iii, 9: "Which Hermon 
the Sidonians call Sirion; and the 
Amorites call it Shenir." 

Bishop Colenso says : " In David's time, and 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 141 

afterwards, the Sidonians were well known to the 
people of Israel. But what could they have 
known of them in the days of Moses, that 
such a statement as this should have been in- 
serted in the middle of a speech of the great 
law-giver ?" 

Why could not Moses have learned the Sido- 
nian name of the mountain from commercial trav- 
elers? A constant traffic had gone on from the 
most ancient times between Sidon and Egypt. 
Egyptian armies, from the eighteenth dynasty 
downwards, repeatedly traversed Syria ; and the 
transcription of Semitic words is said to be re- 
markably complete. 

17. Deut. iii, 11: "For only Og, king of 
Bashan, remained of the remnant of giants; be- 
hold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron ; is it 
not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?" etc. 

"The conquest of the giant king, Og," ob- 
serves Bleek (" Introduction to the Old Testa- 
ment," Yol. I, p. 234), "is related 

__ ' . > r /> Deut. iii, 11. 

JNum. xxi, 33 ff, and occurred, there- 
fore, in the fortieth year of their journeying, a 
few months before the death of Moses. Moses, 
however, would certainly not so soon after have 
spoken in this way of the coffin [bedstead] ; it 
is here spoken of apparently as something of 
then existing antiquity." 



142 THE PENTATEUCH. 

Bishop Colenso suggests two explanations that 
may be given, though he does not himself admit 
them. " It may be said, indeed," he remarks, 
"that it was captured by the Israelites with the 
other spoils of Og, but had been taken to Rab- 
bath Amnion before the death of Og; perhaps 
captured by the Amorites in some former war ; 
or, perhaps, sent by Og himself for presentation." 

But on what ground does Bleek state that " it 
is here spoken of apparently as something of 
then existing antiquity ?" There is no such inti- 
mation in the language used. The sacred writer 
gives the dimensions of the bedstead, which is 
far beyond the usual size of bedsteads ; if, there- 
fore, any one should think it incredible, he can 
easily verify the fact by having recourse to the 
bedstead itself in Rabbath of the children of 
Ammon. 

18. Deut. iii, 14 : " Jair, the son of Manasseh, 

took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of 

Geshuri and Maachathi ; and called 

Deut. iii, 14. . -r» i 

them after his own name Bashan- 
havoth-jair, unto this day." 

" This refers," says Bleek (" Introduction to 
the Old Testament," Vol. i, p. 234), " to Num. 
xxxii, 41, where there is an account of these vil- 
lages which Jair, son of Manasseh, had taken 
possession of and called the villages of Jair. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 143 

" These are also cited (Josh, xiii, 30) among 
the possessions of the half tribe of Manasseh. 
There is another tradition on the origin of this 
name (Judges x, 3, 4), in which it is derived from 
another Jair, likewise of the tribe of Manasseh, 
at the time of the Judges, who was himself a 
judge for many years/' 

Bleek continues: "We have, therefore, two 
varying traditions on this point." If so, they do 
not both belong to the Pentateuch. 

Were we to undertake to reconcile this account 
with that of Judges x, 3, 4, we might adopt the 
suggestion of Kurtz : " The very fact that in 
Judges x, S a we read, not of sixty, but of thirty 
Chavoth-Jair, renders it probable that the entire 
district may have been lost by the family in the 
confusions of the times of the Judges; while, at 
least a half of it may have been recovered by 
the second Jair. And, if so, it is very conceiv- 
able that the ancient name, which had been pre- 
viously lost, may have been restored either by 
himself or to commemorate his fame. This sup- 
position is expressly confirmed by 1 Chron. ii, 23, 
where the Geshurites and Aramites are said to 
have taken the whole district, with its sixty cit- 
ies, from the descendants of Jair." So Kurtz 
translates the Hebrew text. (" History of the Old 
Covenant," Vol. Ill, p. 412.) 



1 44 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

19. The phrase "unto this day," occurs fre- 
quently in Genesis and in Deuteronomy. (Gen. 

Thephr.se X * X > 3? > 38 ; *^ h U ' XXVl > 33 ; XXX "> 

-mitothis' 32; xxxv, 20; xlvii, 26 ; Deut. ii, 22; 
iii, 14; x, 8, etc.) 
This phrase indicates, it is asserted, a post- 
Mosaic authorship of the passages in which it 
occurs; since it implies that a long time elapsed 
between the time of the recorded event and that 
of the writer. But it does not, as used in the 
Bible, necessarily imply this. It may, however, 
be considered a gloss by a later hand. 

20. Deut., chap, xxxiv: This chap- 

Chap. xxxiv. x A 

ter, with the exception of vs. 1-4, 
could not have been written by Moses. 

These passages, with the objections founded 
upon them against the Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch, have been taken from Bleek's " In- 
troduction to the Old Testament;" and from 
Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch. They are 
not exhaustive of Bishop Colenso's list, but suffi- 
ciently so to give an idea of the character of those 
that have been passed over. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. , 145 



Section II. 

ALLEGED INCONGRUITY OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE PENTA- 
TEUCH WITH ITS MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP. 

The laws of the Pentateuch have been di- 
gested into three distinct codes, or three principal 
groups : 

1. The Book of the Covenant, or the Cove- 
nant-Code, which is the oldest. (Ex. xx-xxiv.) 

2. The Deuteronomic Code. (Deut. 

v The Three 

xii-xxvi.) Codes - 

3. The Priest-Code, which embraces part of 
Exodus, nearly all of Leviticus, and part of 
Numbers. 

No objection can be made to this codification. 
It is appropriate. 

But it is said that these codes belong to differ- 
ent periods in the history of Israel, and represent 
successive stages in the social culture and relig- 
ious progress of the nation. 

Prof. W. E. Smith says (" The Old Testament 
in the Jewish Church," p. 333) : " It is a very 
remarkable fact, to begin with, that all the sacred 
law of Israel is comprised in the Pen- Extractfrom 
tateuch, and that, apart from the Le- ProL Smith ' 
vitical legislation, it is presented in codified form. 

On the traditional view, three successive bodies 

10 



146 THE PENTATEUCH. 

of law were given to Israel within forty years. 
Within that short time many ordinances were mod- 
ified, and the whole law of Sinai recast on the plains 
of Moab. But from the days of Moses there was 
no change. With his death the Israelites entered 
on a new career, which transformed the nomads 
of Goshen into the civilized inhabitants of vine- 
yard land and cities in Canaan. But the divine 
laws given them beyond Jordan were to remain 
unmodified through all the long centuries of de- 
velopment in Canaan, an absolute and immutable 
code. I say, with all reverence, that this is im- 
possible. God, no doubt, could have given, by 
Moses' mouth, a law fit for the age of Solomon 
or Hezekiah, but such a law could not be fit for 
immediate application in the days of Moses and 
Joshua. Every historical lawyer knows that, in 
the nature of things, the law of the wilderness is 
different from the law of a land of high agricul- 
ture and populous cities. God can do all things, 
but he can not contradict himself, and he who 
shaped the eventful development of Israel's his- 
tory must have framed his law to correspond 
with it." 

Accordingly, some critics hold that God gave 
the Decalogue from Mount Sinai ; and that Mo- 
ses wrote the code in Exodus xx, 23-xxiii, 33, 
called the Book of the Covenant. Others ascribe 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 147 

the Decalogue to Moses; and assign the date of 
the Book of the Covenant to the reign of Je- 
hoshaphat. 

The Deuteronomic Code was promulgated in 
the reign of Josiah ; and the Priest-Code in the 
time of Ezra. 

This is a proteron-hysteron theory, making the 
Elohist later than the Jehovist, the middle books 
of the Pentateuch later than Deuteronomy. It 
introduces confusion into the ranks of the critics, 
entangling the questions at issue, instead of solv- 
ing them. But that is their own affair, and they 
may settle it. 

The principle underlying this whole theory 
of the legislation contained in the Pentateuch is 
that of development. It is assumed underlying 
that the Israelitish religion is one of P rmci P lc - 
the principal religions of mankind ; nothing less, 
nothing more ; that the nation passed through 
the various stages of fetichism and the grossest 
forms of idolatry to monotheism ; and the histor- 
ical records are forced into harmony with this 
hypothesis. It is theological Darwinianism. The 
religion of Israel is to be looked upon as a man- 
ifestation of the religious spirit of mankind, as 
on a level with Brahminism, Buddhism, and Is- 
lam, and is to be examined from the same point 
of view. (See Prof. S. I. Curtiss's work on " The 



148 THE PENTATEUCH. 

Levitical Priests," pp. 1, 2 ; Edinburgh : T. & T. 
Clark; 1877.) 

This is a gratuitous assumption. The Israel- 
itish and the Christian religions claim to be of 
divine origin; and furnish proofs, which ought 
to be seriously considered. 

Prof. W. R. Smith ("Old Testament in 
the Jewish Church/' p. 334) says : " He who 
shaped the eventful development of Israel's his- 
Prof w R t° r y must have framed his law to cor- 
smith. respond with it." This language ad- 
mits that God " shaped the eventful development 
of Israel's history" — in what sense he does not 
say — and implies the divine origin of the law of 
the nation. 

Now, if the position of Israel among the na- 
tions of the world was peculiar, if its law was of 
divine origin, why may not " three successive 
bodies of law " have been " given to Israel within 
forty years?" 

Dr. Briggs (" The Presbyterian Review," Jan- 
uary, 1883, p. 129) well remarks: "The Mosaic 
legislation was delivered through Moses, but it 
was enforced only in part, and in several stages 
of advancement, in the historical life and experi- 
ence of Israel from the conquest to the exile. It 
was a divine ideal, a supernatural revealed in- 
struction, to guide the people of Israel throughout 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 149 

their history, and lead them to the prophet greater 
than Moses, who was to fulfill and complete his 
legislation. The law was the true 

. . Dr. Briggs. 

light of Israel until the first Advent, 
even as the Gospel is the light and guide of the 
Church until the second Advent. Israel appro- 
priated more and more the instruction of the law 
as the Church has appropriated more and more 
the doctrine of the Gospel. The history of God's 
people under both covenants has been essentially 
the same — a grand march under the supernatural 
light of a divine revelation." 

On the hypothesis that the Deuteronomic code 
had no existence until the time of Josiah, and 
that the priest-code was the result of a develop- 
ment between the time of Ezekiel and that of 
Ezra, and was written in the interest of the priestly 
party, it is difficult to see how and why Difficulties 
they were ascribed to Moses. But the of thetheor r- 
use of Moses* name, it is said, is merely a " legal 
fiction." Dr. Green (" Presbyterian Review," 
January, 1882, p. 114) remarks very pertinently: 
" Such a notion could not have arisen unless Mo- 
ses really was the great legislator of the nation, 
and something more than the ten commandments 
was directly traceable to him. This of itself cre- 
ates a presumption in favor of the Mosaic origin 
of the codes ascribed to him, unless there be good 



150 THE PENTATEUCH. 

reason to the contrary. The instances which are 
adduced to show that customs or statutes of a 
later date were imputed to Moses, admit of no such 
interpretation, and could only be distorted to this 
end by one intent upon making out a case." 

Such an hypothesis represents the writers of the 
Deuteronomic and priest codes as forgers, palm- 
ing off upon the people laws, in the name of 
Moses, which had no existence until many centu- 
ries after his time. Here is a moral difficulty 
hard to explain, if they were honest men. The 
ready acceptance of them, on the part of the na- 
tion, furnishes also a psychological difficulty not 
easily solved. It can not be accounted for on 
the supposition that there was among the Israel- 
ites a cyclic literature called Mosaic, just as there 
was among the Greeks a cyclic literature called 
Homeric ; for there is no proof that such a liter- 
ature ever existed among the people of Israel. 
Moreover, there is a wide difference between lit- 
erature and legislation. Laws generally bear the 
names of their authors, and codes those of their 
compilers. In Roman history we read of the 
Lex Decia, Lex Domitia, Lex Duilia, Lex Flavia, 
Lex Flaminia, and of the code of Gregorianus, the 
code of Theodosius, and the code of Justinian. 
Some such method of designating laws and codes 
is found among all civilized nations. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 151 

But this hypothesis is beset with another dif- 
ficulty. It is the incongruity of some of the 
laws of the Deuteronomic and priest codes with 
the times at which they are said to have been in- 
troduced. It is enjoined in the Deuteronomic 
code (Deut. xvii, 14, 15) that, " When thou art 
come unto the land which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell 
therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, 
thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, 
whom the Lord thy God shall choose : one from 
among thy brethren shalt thou set king over 
thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, 
which is not thy brother." What relevancy has 
this law to the time of Josiah, when the kingdom 
had been established in the line of David for 
many generations ? There is also a command 
(Deut. xxv, 19) to " blot out the remembrance 
of Amalek from under heaven." Their power 
was broken in the time of Saul, and they degen- 
erated into a horde of banditti, who seem to have 
been exterminated in the time of David (1 Sam. 
xxvii, xxx). Josiah must have been puzzled 
what to make of such a command. No man of 
common sense could understand it of a few strag- 
gling Amalekites, who might be roaming over 
the peninsula of Sinai, without tribal or national 
organization. He might find, moreover, similar 



1 52 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

difficulty with the command in Deut. xx, 17, 
" Thou shalt utterly destroy them ; namely, the 
Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the 
Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites ; as the 
Lord thy God hath commanded thee." They had 
been destroyed as communities centuries before. 
What would be thought of an act of the Ameri- 
can Congress, at the present day ? ordering the 
removal of the Indians from New York, Penn- 
sylvania, and New Jersey to an Indian reserva- 
tion in the West ? 

If the priest-code owes its existence to Ezra, or 
to men of his time, how are we to understand the 
minute directions concerning the ark, which was 
probably taken away and destroyed by Nebuchad- 
nezzar ? At least, there was no ark in the second 
temple, How are we to understand the minute 
description of the dress and functions of Aaron, 
and of the furniture of the tabernacle ? But 
these remarks are very general : it is necessary 
to examine particulars. 

The result of such an examination will show 
that laws belonging to each of the so-called 
codes, and the institutions based upon them, bear 
the impress of a nomadic life in the desert. 

(1.) Take the Tabernacle — the tent of Jeho- 
vah. Its history begins with Exodus xxv, after 
the first group or code of laws, after the cove- 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 153 

nant with the people and the vision of the Di- 
vine Glory. It was in the form of a tent, which 
could be taken down and transported Lawslt)elong , 
from place to place. Its position was S^Sdes 
in the center of the camp of Israel. p^sVofano- 
Round it were grouped the tribes in 
their encampments. (Num. ii, 1-34.) It was con- 
structed of materials which were partly brought 
by the Israelites from Egypt, and partly found in 
abundance in the Arabian desert. It was evi- 
dently intended for a people living in tents — in 
other words, for a migratory people. 

The existence of a Tabernacle, which, the 
history clearly intimates, was constructed with a 
complex and profound symbolism, and intended 
for a place of religious service, implies the exist- 
ence of a body of ministers to perform that serv- 
ice, and to take down the Tabernacle and remove 
it from place to place. Accordingly we read that 
Aaron and his sons were set apart for the holy 
office of the priesthood (Exodus xxviii) ; and that 
the Levites were appointed " over the tabernacle 
of testimony " that they might " minister unto 
it." (Num. i, 50.) 

We find also regulations for the revenue of 
the priests (Num. xviii, 8-11, 12, 13, 15-19 ; 
Deut. xviii, 3-5) ; and of the Levites (Num. 
xviii, 21-24; Deut, xii, 19). 



154 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

Consider, moreover, the allusion to the camp 
(Num. iv, 5), to Aaron (iii, 10, 32, 38, 39, 48, 
51 ; iv, 5, 15, 16, 28), to Egypt (in, 13), and the 
frequent allusions to the wilderness (ix, 1, passim), 
and the conclusion can not be resisted, that the 
Tabernacle, the regulations connected with it, the 
priesthood, and the laws for the support of the 
priests and Levites, had their origin in the time 
of Moses. They are utterly incongruous with the 
time of Ezra. 

(2.) That part of the priest-code which pre- 
scribes the functions of the priests within the 
tabernacle, supposes the wilderness and the camp 
as the place of sacrifice, and Aaron and his sons 
as the sacrificers. (Lev. iv, 12, 21 ; i, 5, 7, 8, 11; 
ii, 2, 3, 10 ; iii, 2, 5, 8, 13 ; vi, 9, 13, 18 ; vii, 10, 
31, 33, 35.) 

Leviticus xvi prescribes the ceremonial for 
the great atonement. Aaron is the priest (vs. 2, 
3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 21, 23) : the scapegoat is sent from 
the camp into the wilderness (vs. 7-10, 21, 22). 

The sacrifice of an ox, lamb, or goat (Lev. 
xvii, 1-9) must be made at the door of the tab- 
ernacle. This is enjoined upon Aaron and his 
sons. So that Aaron was still living, and the 
scene must have been the camp. There was a 
remission from the strictness of this law in view 
of the scattered condition of Israel in Canaan. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 155 

(3.) Many laws of the priest-code suppose the 
proximity of every member of the nation to the 
tabernacle ; e. g., the law respecting unclean is- 
sues (Lev. xv, 2-33) ; the law regulating the vow 
of the Nazarite (Num. vi, 1-21) ; the law of puri- 
fication after child-birth (Lev. xii) ; and the law 
with reference to lepers (Lev. xiii ; xiv, 1-32). 
In all those cases, the persons concerned were to 
bring their offerings to " the door of the taber- 
nacle of the congregation." 

(4.) There is frequent reference in the legisla- 
tion of the Pentateuch to the deliverance of the 
children of Israel from the land of Egypt; and 
the covenant-code is introduced by proclaiming 
to them that Jehovah demanded their obedience, 
because he brought them " out of the land of 
Egypt, out of the house of bondage." (Exodus 
xx, 2.) But this reminder is not limited to the 
covenant-code ; it occurs frequently in Leviticus 
and Numbers. (Lev. xi, 45; xix, 36; xxii, 33; 
xxiii, 43; xxv, 38, 42, 55; xxvi, 13, 45; Num. 
xv, 41.) There are some things, also, in the out- 
ward Levitical ceremonial, which indicate an 
Egyptian type. (See " The Pentateuch," by the 
Eev. W. Smith, Ph. D., Vol. I, pp. 289-305; 
London : Longmans, Green & Co. ; 1868.) These 
facts prove a recent connection with Egypt. 

(5.) If the legislation of the Pentateuch points 



156 THE PENTATEUCH. 

back to Egypt, it points forward to Canaan. 
This is a proof that it originated in 

Thelegisla- . x _° 

tion of the the time of Moses. (Exodus xii, 25- 

Pentateuch x ' 

points back 27; xiii, 1-14; xxiii, 20-33: xxxiv, 

to Egypt, and ' } J ' > 

c°an v aa r n. t0 U ~ 2Q > Lev - xiv > 34-57; xviii ; xix, 
23-37; xx, 22-24; xxiii, 10-22; xxv, 
2-55 ; Num. xv, 2 ; xviii, 20-24 ; xxxiv, 2-29 ; 
xxxv, 2-34.) 

Examples and proof texts that the Penta- 
teuchal legislation belongs, in all its essential 
features, to the time when the children of Israel 
were in the wilderness, might be greatly multi- 
plied. It is plain, from the history of that time, 
that God gave to his people a constitution, laws, 
which looked beyond existing circumstances to a 
time when they should become a settled and agri- 
cultural nation in the land of Canaan. It is cer- 
tainly more rational to view them as having a 
prospective reference, than as having a retrospect- 
ive one, to a state of things no longer existing, 
as it is necessary to do, if they originated in the 
time of Ezra. They may not have been all en- 
acted at once. Some of them had their origin in 
incidents of the way, as laws regulating the suc- 
cession of property (Num. xxvi, 52-56 ; xxvii, 
8-11), and others. Some may have been modi- 
fied to suit particular emergencies; and others 
may have fallen into disuse ; but the three codes, 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 157 

in all their essential features, existed from the 
time of Moses. 

But it is objected that there are laws which can 
not have had their origin in the time of Moses. 

" Some of the laws," observes Bleek (" Intro- 
duction to the Old Testament," Vol. 1, p. 236), 
"are of such a kind that we can not well think 
of them to have proceeded from, or to have been 
written by, Moses, as they relate to circumstances 
which it is very improbable Moses could have 
noticed in such a manner in his legislation ; and 
it is unlikely that these later relations should 
appear in them so distinctly presupposed as 
already in existence." 

(1.) The first instance, which Bleek gives is 
the ordinance as to kings. (Deut. xvii, Deut xvii 
14-20.) 14 - 20 -' 

The positions assumed are : (a) The regal 
power had no foundation at all in the original 
plan of the theocratic state of the Israelites. 

(b) It is inconceivable that Moses, who died 
more than three centuries before regal govern- 
ment was introduced in the person of Saul, could 
have made mention of a king as these verses do. 

(c) That a regal form of government, when it 
was afterwards introduced, appeared as something 
foreign, which was added against the will of 
Jehovah. 



; 

1 58 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

(d) If such a law had been extant as a Mosaic 
one, Samuel could not easily have so long resisted 
the desire of the Israelites that he should grant 
them a king. 

(e) That in the narrative of the appointment 
of Saul (1 Sam. viii-xii) there is no reference 
whatever to these provisions of Deuteronomy. 

(/.) That the prohibitions against multiplying 
to himself horses, wives, silver, and gold are evi- 
dently suggested by the history of Solomon. 
(Compare 1 Kings x, 26-29 and xi, 1-4.) 

(g) That the reference to the traffic in horses 
with Egypt points to the times of the later kings 
of Judah. (Compare Isaiah ii, 7 ; xxxvi, 9 ; Jer. 
ii, 18, 36; xlii, 15-19.) 

These are grounds on which it is argued that 
this passage was written, long after the time of 
Moses, indeed, after the time of Solomon, prob- 
ably in the age of Jeremiah. 

The replies to these positions will be given in 
the same order and with the same notation. 

(a) This passage is not the only one in the 
Pentateuch in which allusion is made to kings of 
Israel. (Gen. xvii, 16; xlix, 10; Num. xxiv, 17; 
Deut. xxviii, 36.) 

Though the constitution of the Israelitish 
state was theocratic, yet that did not exclude the 
regal authority. The king was a theocratic king, 



EXPOSITIONS AND THE ORE IS. 159 

the representative of Jehovah upon earth. It 
would seem, on a comparison of the New Testa- 
ment with the Old, that the typical significance 
of the Israelitish nation and institutions would 
not have been complete without a king. Christ 
sits upon the throne of his father David. (Luke 
i, 32.) 

(b) Moses was endowed with supernatural 
gifts. He was a prophet. Why should he not 
then have contemplated such a contingency as a 
change in the form of the Israelitish government? 
He was, moreover, a man of wide experience, and 
knew that the neighboring nations were governed 
by kings; was it not, therefore, natural to enter- 
tain the supposition that Israel might wish to 
imitate the nations around them by establishing 
a regal form of government? 

(c) Perhaps it is assuming too much to say 
that such a form of government, when it was 
afterwards introduced, was against the will of 
Jehovah. Their reason for asking it was cer- 
tainly against his will. They said to Samuel, 
" Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in 
thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like 
all the nations." (1 Sam. viii, 5.) 

It was certainly very disrespectful to Samuel 
to suggest to him to resign an authority which 
he had wielded so wisely and so justly; and 



160 THE PENTA TE UCH. 

which the sequel of his history, for many years, 
proved that he was able to maintain. It was 
not only disrespectful to the prophet, but it was 
also an indirect rejection of the authority of Je- 
hovah, who had appointed him to be judge over 
Israel. Here lay the sin of the people, and not 
in asking for the establishment of a monarchy. 
The Lord said to Samuel : " Hearken unto their 
voice, and make them a king." (1 Sam. viii, 22.) 
He said to David, " Thine house and thy king- 
dom shall be established forever." (2 Sam. vii, 
16.) If the regal office itself was against the will 
of Jehovah, it is not probable that he would have 
spoken thus to David. 

(d) It is not at all remarkable that Samuel 
should resist the desire of the Israelites, when he 
perceived the motive which actuated them. 

(e) Though there is no reference in 1 Sam. 
viii-xii to Deut. xvii, 14-20, yet the terms, in 
which the request of the people is preferred, are 
very like those employed in Deuteronomy. Com- 
pare the words, " See ye him whom the Lord 
hath chosen" (1 Sam. x, 24), with the words, 
" Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, 
whom the Lord thy God shall choose." (Deut. 
xviii, 15.) 

It is thought strange that Samuel, if he was 
acquainted with this law, does not mention it. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 161 

However strange his reticence may be, yet the 
narrative shows that the statute was not un- 
known to him. It is stated (1 Sam. x, 25), 
(a) that " Samuel told the people the manner 
of the kingdom; (b) and wrote it in a book; 
(c) and laid it up before the Lord." In 1 Sam. 
viii, 11, he said, "This will be the manner of 
the king," etc. Here, it is said, he " told the 
people the manner of the kingdom;" and his 
writing it in a book suggests at once the direc- 
tion given in Deut. xvii, 18. It seems prob- 
able, therefore, that we have here the adoption 
of the Mosaic law of the regal office. 

(/ and g) These positions proceed upon the 
assumption that Moses could not foresee, or even 
conjecture, the future, and that he had no expe- 
rience of kingly government. He was brought 
up at a luxurious court, where he had an oppor- 
tunity of observing the influence of kingly power 
upon its possessor. " The excesses forbidden to 
the king of Israel were those in which Eastern 
potentates were wont to indulge; nor, supposing 
Moses to have thought of a king at all, is any 
thing more in keeping with the general spirit of 
the legislation than that he should have sought 
to guard against some of the more obvious and 
ordinary abuses of Oriental despotism?" 

T. E. Espin, B. D. (Bible Commentary, in loc), 
11 



1 62 THE PENT A TE TJCH. 

remarks: "It is quite unintelligible how and 
why a later writer, desiring to pass under the 
name of Moses, could have penned a passage ex- 
hibiting the peculiarities of the one under con- 
sideration. He could not have designed it as 
an example of the prophetical powers of the 
great law-giver of Israel, for it is so vaguely and 
generally conceived as to look rather like a sur- 
mise than a prediction. Nor could he have in- 
tended to insert it by a kind of sanction of 
royalty in the Mosaic legislation ; for it contains 
rather a toleration of that mode of government 
than an approval of it. Neither would he have 
thought of subjecting his imaginary king to rules 
which must have sounded, in part at least, little 
less than absurd to his own contemporaries, and 
which are in themselves such as no one in his 
(supposed) time and circumstances can naturally 
be thought to have invented." 

(2.) Deut. xix, 14 : " Thou shalt not remove 
thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time 
Deut xix 14- nave se * in thine inheritance, which 
xx * thou shalt inherit in the land that 

the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." 
Also, chap, xx, which relates to military service. 
These laws, it is said, presuppose the firm pos- 
session of the land, even a long abode in it. The 
relative clause (v. 14), " that the Lord thy God 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 163 

giveth thee [the participle is used, literally is 
giving thee, or is about to give thee'] precludes any 
such supposition. Can not laws have a prospect- 
ive reference ? Does the clause in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, framed in 1787, "The 
Vice-president of the United States shall be 
president of the Senate," imply that the govern- 
ment of the United States had been already firmly 
established, and that the Vice-president had been 
elected ? The clause evidently relates to the 
future. So do all the clauses of that fundamen- 
tal law of the nation. 

3. On Exodus xxii, 29, 30, Bleek remarks 
(" Introduction to the Old Testament, Vol. I, 
p. 238) : " It seems already presup- Ex xxii 29) 
posed that the Israelites brought to 30, 
the priests first-fruits of their cattle, and of their 
wine, and of the fruits of the field. For it is 
enjoined, without any thing having been ordered 
before as to the offering itself, that they should 
not delay in doing this. But this occurs in the 
same way in the first legal ordinances which 
were given at Sinai. There are in the same 
series (Chron. xxiii, 10, 11, 16) laws as to the 
cultivation of the fields, vineyards, and olive- 
yards, and also as to the harvest-feast, ordinances 
that must at least excite our surprise when given 
at so early a time. In verse 19, the existence of 



164 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

the sanctuary, the house of Jehovah, is presup- 
posed, while the ordinances for the arrangement 
of the sanctuary do not follow till later." 

These " ordinances given at so early a time," 
need not " excite our surprise," when we con- 
sider that Jehovah had brought the Israelites 
out of the land of Egypt, and that he was lead- 
ing them into the land of Canaan,, which he had 
given to them, by promise, for a possession. It 
would rather " excite our surprise," if no such 
law had been given before their occupation of 
the land. 

The phrase, " thou shalt not delay " or defer 
to offer, etc., does not already presuppose that 
the Israelites had brought to the priests "first- 
fruits of their cattle," etc. It merely enjoins 
that they shall do it, when they are settled in 
Canaan. 

4. Leviticus xxvi, 3-45. This passage con- 
tains an admonitory discourse of Moses. Bleek 
Lev xxvi thinks that, " as it here runs," it very 
3-45. probably belongs to a much later age 

than the Mosaic — to a time when, after taking 
possession of the land, the people had given them- 
selves up very much to idolatry, and on this ac- 
count had been oftentimes punished by Jehovah. 

It does not imply that the people " had been 
oftentimes punished by Jehovah." The promises 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 165 

and threatenings of the passage are hypothetical 
and conditional. " If ye walk in my statutes," 
etc. (v. 3). "But if ye will not hearken unto 
me," etc. (v. 14). " And if ye walk contrary 
unto me," etc. (v. 21). " And if ye will not," 
etc. (v. 27). 

The laws (Ex. xx, 22 xxiii, 20-23) con- 
clude with promises and warnings; so does the col- 
lection of laws in Leviticus. The former relate to 
the conquest of the laud of Canaan : the latter to 
the subsequent history of the nation. Deuteron- 
omy xxvii-xxx is a similar passage. 

5. Deut. xii, 5-14, requires that sacrifices 
be brought to a central altar, to " the Deut ^ 
place which the Lord your God shall £>_u - 
choose out of all your tribes to put his name 
there" (vs. 5, 14). 

This law, it is affirmed, can not have been in 
force in the times of Samuel and Elijah; for 
Samuel sacrificed in Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii, 9) ; in 
"the high place" (1 Sam. ix, 12); at Gilgal (1 
Sam. x, 8 ; xi, 15) ; at Bethlehem (1 Sam. xvi, 3) ; 
and Elijah sacrificed at Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 
xviii, 19-38 ; compare chap, xix, 10, 14). 

It is thought to be incredible that two men, 
so faithful and so devoted to the service of God, 
should transgress any command of God known 
to them ; and it is inferred that, if the Deuter- 



166 THE PENTATEUCH. 

onomic code existed at that time, the command to 
sacrifice at the central altar could not have been 
unknown to them. 

If it be granted that Samuel was ignorant of 
the existence of the law of sacrifice (Deut. xii, 

Samuel's and 5 ~ 14 )> ** would form n ° Valid argU- 

posed '?g£c?" naent against the existence of the book 
Deuterono- 6 of Deuteronomy. God could dispense 
with that law ; and it is certain that, 
on one occasion of Samuel's sacrificing, he did 
(1 Sam. xvi, 2) ; and if, on that occasion, he 
acted under special divine direction, he may have 
done so on other occasions, though the fact is not 
mentioned. 

Elijah's ignorance of the Deuteronomic law is 
inferred from his complaint to the Lord against 
Israel (1 Kings xix, 10, 14). But Ahab, king of 
Israel, was a persecutor of the worshipers of Je- 
hovah ; and it may have been impossible for them 
to go to the temple of Jerusalem. To prevent 
reunion with Judah, Jeroboam I devised a policy 
to deter the ten tribes from going up to Jerusa- 
lem. In these circumstances, the Lord may have 
allowed them to erect altars to him in their own 
territory. It is certain that God manifested his 
approval of Elijah's sacrifice on Mt. Carmel. 
(1 Kings xviii, 36-38.) 

It is evident, therefore, that the sacrifices of 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 167 

Samuel and Elijah furnish no proof that the book 
of Deuteronomy did not exist in their days, unless 
it can be shown that God permitted, in no 
circumstances, a departure from the law of Deuter- 
onomy xii, 5-14. The children of Israel sacri- 
ficed at Bochim (Judges ii, 5), Gideon at Oph- 
rah (vi, 19-26), where he built an altar by divine 
command ; and Manoah offered sacrifice " upon a 
rock unto the Lord" (xiii, 19), which was ac- 
cepted (v. 23). 

It must be borne in mind that the condition 
of Israel was very unsettled during the time of 
the Judges. " Every man did that which was 
right in his own eyes." (Judges xxi, 25.) The 
ark, after its restoration by the Philistines, was 
not carried back to Shiloh. The tabernacle was 
migratory. It was moved from Shiloh to Nob, 
and thence to Gibeon (1 Sam. xxi, 6 ; 1 Kings 
iii, 4 ; 2 Chron. i, 3) ; and the ark is supposed by 
some to have been seventy years in the house of 
Abinadab ,at Gibeah. (Compare 1 Sam. vii, 1, 
with 2 Sam. vi, 3.) After the death of Solomon 
the kingdom Avas divided ; and the northern king- 
dom established a cultus of its own. In such a 
state of things, we need not be surprised at irreg- 
ularities in the matter of sacrifices. 

Moreover, there were other places besides 
Shiloh, in the land of Israel, which, for certain 



168 THE PENTATEUCH. 

reasons, were considered sacred. These were 
Shechem, where Joseph was buried ; and Gilgal, 
the first camping-place of the Israelites after the 
passage of the Jordan. There the covenant with 
God was renewed by circumcision and the pass- 
over. Bethel was a holy place, consecrated by 
Jacob. It was the temporary seat of the ark 
during the civil war between Benjamin and the 
other tribes. (Judges xx, 18, 23, 26 ; xxi, 2, 
Bethel in the Hebrew text.) Mizpeh was a sa- 
cred place (Judges xi, 11 ; xxi, 1) ; and also Gib- 
eon (1 Kings iii, 4). The tabernacle was trans- 
ferred from Nob to Gibeon, after the slaughter of 
the priests, and remained there for some time 
without the ark, which was brought by David to 
Jerusalem and placed first in a new tabernacle, 
and ultimately in the temple. (Compare 1 Chron. 
xvi, 39 ; 2 Chron. i, 3, 4, and 1 Kings viii, 1.) 

The law (Deut. xii, 5-14) requiring sacrifices 

to be brought to the central altar, would exclude 

the bamoth, or " high places." But 

High Places. ' ° r 

these were used as places ot sacrifice. 
Samuel went up to " the high place " to " bless 
the sacrifice." (1 Sam. ix, 13.) In 1 Sam. x, 5, 
we find the phrase " the hill of God " (Hebrew, 
the Gibeah of God), which, in the opinion of 
some, means a place of worship. At least, there 
is mention of " a company of prophets " and of 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 169 

a " high place " in chap, x, 5. They were places 
of worship in Asa's time (1 Kings xv, 14); in 
the reign of Amaziah (2 Kings xiv, 4) ; and the 
reigns of Azariah (2 Kings xv, 4), and Jotham 
(v. 35). They were removed by Hezekiah (2 
Kings xviii, 4), but rebuilt by his son, Manas- 
seh (xxi, 3). Josiah destroyed them again, and 
abolished idolatry of every kind. 

Now, it is argued that if the Deuteronomic 
law, requiring sacrifices to be brought to the cen- 
tral altar, had been in existence, sacrifices and 
worship on " the high places " would not have 
been tolerated. Josiah's zeal in suppressing them 
can be easily accounted for, because the book of 
Deuteronomy was written in his reign, according 
to the school of Kuenen, for a reform pro- 
gramme. 

On this hypothesis, it is difficult to under- 
stand the apology for sacrificing " in high places." 
"Only the people sacrificed in high places, be- 
cause there was no house built unto the name of 
the Lord, until those days." (1 Kings iii, 2.) 
In the account of the reforms made by Asa, we 
meet with the parenthetic remark, " but the high 
places were not removed." (1 Kings xv, 14.) 
Hezekiah " removed the high places." (2 Kings 
xviii, 4.) These passages are not easily under- 
stood apart from the Deuteronomic law. More- 



170 THE PENTATEUCH. 

over, what programme did Hezekiah use for his 
reforms ? It is stated, " he clave to the Lord, 
and departed not from following him, but kept 
his commandments, which the Lord commanded 
Moses" (v. 6). This verse plainly intimates that 
he found it in the commandments of the Lord, 
which he commanded Moses. 

The hypothesis assumes that the practice of a 

people comes up, in all circumstances, to the ideal 

standard of the law : that the law is 

Assumptions 7 

potbSis 7 " ^ e mere ex P onent of their character 
and conduct. It makes no allowance 
for ignorance, indifference, change of circum- 
stances, and occasional emergencies. Every one 
that reads history knows the absurdity of such 
an assumption. Compare the history of the 
Christian Church, from the time of Christ down 
to the present, with the doctrines and precepts of 
the New Testament, and the want of conformity 
of the practice of professing Christians to these 
doctrines and precepts is painfully manifest. 
May not the same thing have existed among the 
Israelites in relation to their law ? Attempts 
have occasionally been made, in the history of 
the Church, to attain to the ideal standard of 
Christianity, and similar attempts were made in 
the reigns of David, Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah 
to attain to the ideal standard of the Mosaic law. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 171 

The law itself contemplated certain emergen- 
cies, in which the observance of it might be im- 
practicable (Num. ix, 6-13), and relaxed its rigor. 
Hezekiah availed himself of this relaxation, and 
postponed the celebration of the passover uutil 
the second month. (2 Chron. xxx, 3.) How far 
this may have been done in other circumstances, 
and in other matters, we are not informed. 

If the arguments advanced to prove that the 
Deuteronomic code had no existence until the 
time of Josiah, on account of its supposed incon- 
gruity with the previous history, and that the 
priest-code could not have existed before the time 
of Ezra, for the same reason, are valid, how shall 
we reconcile these codes with the times subse- 
quent to Ezra ? By parity of reasoning, we must 
conclude that they did not exist then; in fact, 
that they never did exist as operative laws; for 
they were neglected, in different ways, as much 
after as before the exile. 

Malachi accuses the priests of a violation of 
the priest-code. (Malachi i, 7, 8, 13; Thecodenot 
ii, 8; iii, 8, compared with Lev. xxii, figffjS: 

1 Q_99 ^ exilic times. 

Synagogues, for which there is no express pro- 
vision in the Mosaic law, were established and 
multiplied. A worship, independent of the tem- 
ple, grew up in them. Thus there arose in the 



172 THE PENTATEUCH. 

state a spiritual power distinct irom the priest- 
hood; for though many of their teachers were 
priests and Levites, yet this was not necessary. 
They ultimately acquired a supremacy, not for- 
mally recognized by the constitution, but not 
less real and substantial. A maxim obtained 
among the Jews : " The voice of the Rabbi " — 
not the voice of the priest — " the voice of God." 
" Hence the circumstances of the Jewish history 
concurred in depressing the spiritual authority of 
the priesthood ; and as in such a community spir- 
itual authority must have existed somewhere, its 
transfer to the Rabbins, though slow and imper- 
ceptible, was no less certain. During the reign 
of the Asmoneans, the high-priesthood became a 
mere appendage to the temporary sovereignty."* 

The scribes, who were not necessarily Levites, 
became teachers of the people. They were the 
theological jurists of their day. The office first 
comes into view in the days of Ezra, who is de- 
scribed as " a ready scribe in the law of Moses." 
(Ezra vii, 6, 11.) 

" One of the sons of Joiada, the son of Elia- 
shib the high-priest," married the daughter of 
Sanballat the Horonite (Neh. xiii, 28) ; and " de- 
filed the priesthood, and the covenant of the 



-"The History of the Jews," hy Henry Hart Milman, D. D., Vol. 
II. ; pp. 418, 419 ; New York ; 1866. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 173 

priesthood and the Levites" (v. 29). Nehemiah, 
who was another Josiah, expelled him from Jeru- 
salem (v. 28) ; but the marriage showed that the 
son of Joiada did not regard " the covenant of 
the priesthood and the Levites;" and, in the 
absence of Nehemiah, he might have remained 
unmolested. 

Onias, son of the high-priest of the same 
name, and said to be the rightful heir of the 
high-priesthood, fled into Egypt, and founded a 
temple in the Heliopolitan nome, to which a tract 
of land was given for the maintenance of worship. 
The Jews of Alexandria claimed divine authority 
for this temple (Isaiah xix, 18, 19), and had the 
legitimate heir of the high-priesthood for their 
officiating minister.* 

There were also various factions and sects 
among the people — the Hellenizing party, that 
favored the introduction of Greek culture; the 
Pharisees, who made void the law by their tradi- 
tions; the Sadducees, or freethinkers, and the 
Essenes, who were mystics and ascetics, and sent 
gifts to the temple, but did not offer sacrifices 
there. 

It would seem, from this brief exhibition of 
the state of the Jewish people after the exile, that 
the Deuteronomic and priest-codes were very 

*Milman's " History of the Jews," Vol. II, p. 33. 



174 THE PENTATEUCH. 

little regarded by a great many of the nation. 
The Pharisees were always strict ritualists; but 
they added to the law many traditions. If, there- 
fore, the Deuteronomic code did not exist until 
the time of Josiah, and the priest-code until the 
time of Ezra, where were they in post-exilic times ? 

Section III. 

THEOEY THAT ALL THE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH ARE POST- 
MOSAIC ; THAT DEUTERONOMY WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE 
YEAR 625 B. C, PERHAPS BY HILKIAH, AND THAT THE MID- 
DLE BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH ARE POST-EXILIC. 

This idea was suggested by Vatke, George, 
and Von Bohlen, in 1835 ; but it was ridiculed 
by De Wette, and repudiated by the most emi- 
nent Biblical scholars of that time. Its best 
known advocates are Dr. A. Kuenen, professor 
of theology in the university of Ley- 
vocates of the den, in Holland; Graf, Julius "Well- 
hausen, professor at Greifswald ; and 
W. Robertson Smith, LL. D., lately professor 
of Hebrew and Old Testament exegesis in the 
Free Church College of Aberdeen, in Scotland. 
Though these gentlemen belong to the same crit- 
ical school, yet it is generally understood that 
Dr. Smith professes to adhere to the doctrinal 
standards of his Church, and there is no reason 
to doubt the sincerity of his profession. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 175 

The arguments advanced to prove that Deu- 
teronomy was written about 625 B. C, and that 
the middle books of the Pentateuch are post- 
exilic, are : 

1. " The Levitical laws give a graduated hier- 
archy of priests and Levites; Deuteronomy re- 
gards all Levites as at least possible priests." 

2. " Before, the strict hierarchical law was not 
in force, apparently never had been in force." 

3. " If so, the Levitical element is the latest 
thing in the Pentateuch ; or, on the opposite view, 
the hierarchic theory existed as a legal programme 
long before the exile, though it was fully carried 
out only after Ezra." 

4. " The chronology of the composition of 
the Pentateuch may be said to center in the ques- 
tion whether the Levitico-Elohistic Arguments 
document, which embraces most of the provcthe* 
laws in Leviticus, with large parts of tieor> - 
Exodus and Numbers, is earlier or later than 
Deuteronomy." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Arti- 
cle Bible.) 

The results arrived at from these positions 
are, (a) that Deuteronomy was written about 625 
B. C. ; (6) that the other books of the Pentateuch 
were written, not earlier than 445 B. C. ; (c) that 
Ezekiel is the bridge between Deuteronomy and 
the middle books of the Pentateuch. 



176 THE PENTATEUCH. 

1. The passages which are adduced in proof 
of the position that Deuteronomy regards all 
Levites as at least possible priests are the follow- 
ing, viz. : 

(a) Deut. x, 8 : " At that time the Lord sepa- 
rated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord, to stand before 

Deut. x, 8. . T , . . . , 

the Lord to minister unto him, and to 
bless in his name unto this day." 

It is claimed that, according to this passage, 
not only Aaron, but also the entire tribe of Levi 
were first set apart at Jotbath to priestly func- 
tions, which are described (1) " to bear the ark 
of the covenant of the Lord ;" (2) " to stand be- 
fore the Lord to minister unto him;" (3) "to 
bless in his name." 

The phrase, " at that time" does not designate 
the time when the Israelites arrived at Jotbath ; 
but it is parallel with verse 1, and connects with 
verse 5, where the ark is mentioned. Through- 
out the passage the time of the events at Siuai is 
kept in view. The ark was carried from Horeb 
to Jotbath ; consequently the separation of the 
tribe of Levi to bear it had been made before 
they arrived at the latter place. 

The bearing of " the ark of the covenant of 
the Lord " was not a priestly prerogative. The 
priests may have borne it on extraordinary occa- 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 177 

sions; but we are told by the chronicler (1 Chron. 
xv ? 2), " None ought to carry the ark of God but 
the Levites : for them hath the Lord chosen to 
carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him 
forever." These are the words of David, uttered 
by him when he had " prepared a place for the 
ark of God/' long before the exile. 

"To stand before the Lord to minister to 
him" was not peculiar to the priests. Samuel 
ministered unto the Lord (1 Sam. ii, 11; com- 
pare iii, 15) ; but he was not a priest. Jehoiada, 
in the reign of Athaliah, in his charge to the 
congregation, said: "But let none come into the 
house of the Lord, save the priests, and they 
that minister of the Levites; they shall go in, 
for they are holy." (2 Chron. xxiii, 6.) Heze- 
kiah " brought in the priests and the Levites, 
and said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites, . . . 
for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, 
to serve him, and that ye should minister unto 
him. Then the Levites arose," etc. (2 Chron. 
xxix, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16.) 

" Of course," observes Prof. Curtiss (" Levit- 
ical Priests," pp. 17, 18), " the only reasonable 
interpretation which can be given of this passage 
is that which we propose to apply to Deut. x, 8, 
9, namely, that in his address Hezekiah is speak- 
ing of the priests and Levites together as Le- 
12 



178 THE PENTATEUCH. 

vites. It seems, also, that this indefiniteness did 
not occasion any doubt in their minds as to their 
respective duties, since it is said that the priests 
brought out the filth from the inner part of the 
house of the Lord, while the Levites took what 
was. brought out to carry it to the brook Kidron. 
Certainly there was no impropriety in the Deu- 
teronomist's speaking of the tribe of Levi as 
standing to minister before the Lord ; and while 
he applied this with special emphasis to the 
priests, we may suppose, at the same time, he 
neither excluded the Levites nor was ignorant 
of the distinction between them and the priests, 
nor that he wished to destroy it. The citations 
from Chronicles certainly furnish the best com- 
mentary to this passage." 

" To bless in his name " was the prerogative 
of the priests. 

Taking into view the whole verse, we con- 
clude that the tribe of Levi was separated and 
set apart that they might discharge the functions 
specified in it as a tribe ; but not that each one 
of its members should discharge all these func- 
tions. Priestly functions were to be discharged 
by the priests : those that were not of a priestly 
nature by the Levites. 

(b) " The priests the Levites, all the tribe of 
Levi." (Deut. xviii, l a .) 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 179 

It is asserted that in this passage the word 
" Levites" is in apposition to "priests;" and that 
the expression " all the tribe of Levi " 

, '. ,, ,j Deut. xviii, la. 

is in apposition to the expression, the 

priests the Levites." This construction attributes 

priestly functions to the whole tribe of Levi. 

There is an asyndeton between " the Levites, 
all the tribe of Levi," which has been removed 
in the English version, which reads, "the Le- 
vites and all the tribe of Levi." But the con- 
junction is unnecessary; indeed, it weakens the 
force of the original. " The absence of conjunc- 
tions in Hebrew, and its climax from the partic- 
ular to the general, are emphatic ; the effect 
might be given thus : " There shall not be to the 
priests, the Levites, yea, the whole tribe of Levi, 
any inheritance," etc. (The Bible Commentary, 
in he.) The tribe is prominent. It was it that 
was separated from secular pursuits and called to 
religious service. For the tribe provision was to 
be made, and Jehovah was to be its inheritance. 

Other passages can be cited, in which no con- 
nective particle is used, and yet it is clear that 
the classes are distinct. (Ezra x, 5 ; Neh. x, 28, 
34 ; xi, 20.) So here the priests, as in Ezra x, 
5, etc., may be considered as distinct from the 
Levites. The passage, therefore, furnishes no 
proof that all Levites were possible priests. 



180 THE PENT A TE UCH. . 

(c) Dent, xviii, 3-8 : " And this shall be the 
priests' due from the people, from them that 
Deut. xviii °^ er a sacrifice, whether it be of ox or 
2rSm sheep; and they shall give unto the 

priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the 
maw. The first fruit, also, of thy corn, of thy 
wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece 
of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. For the Lord 
thy God hath chosen him out of all the tribes, to 
stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him 
and his sons forever. And if a Levite come from 
any of the gates out of all Israel, where he so- 
journed, and come with all the desire of his 
mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose; 
then he shall minister in the name of the Lord 
his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which 
stand before the Lord. They shall have like 
portions to eat, besides that which cometh of the 
sale of his patrimony." 

These verses confirm the interpretation of 
verse l a . They make separate allusion to the 
two parts of the tribe of Levi. The priest and 
the perquisites assigned to him are mentioned in 
verses 3-5 ; the Levite in verses 6-8. 

The question, however, is whether the por- 
tions assigned to the priest, in this passage, are to 
be considered a substitution for those specified in 
Lev. vii, or in addition to them. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 181 

Those who regard the provision here made for 
the priests more scanty than that in the preced- 
ing books, take the view that it is a substitution; 
and infer that the Deuteronomist points to a 
lower estimation of the priests than that sug- 
gested in the middle books of the Pentateuch. 

But there is nothing in the passage that points 
to a lower estimation of them ; neither is there 
any thing in it which would lead one to regard 
it as substituting a scantier provision than that 
allowed in these books. The chapter opens 
(vs. 1, 2) by representing that priests and Levites 
would require some special provision after the 
settlement and partition of Canaan by the other 
tribes. The shoulder and the maw were consid- 
ered among the choicest pieces, and not inferior. 
Verse 4 provides a new item of income for the 
priests; namely, "the first of the fleece of thy 
sheep." A distinction seems to be intended be- 
tween " the offerings of the Lord made by fire, 
and his inheritance " (v. 1), and the " priest's due 
from the people " (v. 3.) It appears that in later 
times, the priest had a recognized claim to some 
other portions of the victims slain than the wave- 
breast and heave-shoulder. (1 Sam. ii, 13-16.) 

It is evident from these statements that the 
Deuteronomist does not point to a lower estima- 
tion of the priests than that suggested by the 



182 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

preceding books ; and that " the shoulder, cheeks, 
and maw were to be given by the people to the 
priests in addition to those portions claimed by 
the laws of Leviticus as belonging to the Lord." 
(Bible Commentary, in loc.) 

(d) Deut. xxi, 5 : " And the priests the sons 
of Levi shall come near ; for them the Lord thy 

God hath chosen to minister unto him, 

Deut. xxi, 5. 

and to bless in the name of the Lord; 
and by their word shall every controversy and 
every stroke be tried." 

The priests were " sons of Levi," but it does 
not follow that the term " priests " was compre- 
hensive of the whole tribe of Levi. They are 
here associated with the elders (vs. 2, 3, 4, 6), 
who formed a higher class than ordinary citizens. 
May this fact not suggest to us that " the priests 
the sons of Levi " were also a higher class in the 
tribe of Levi? The same thing is suggested by 
Deut, xvii, 8-13. 

(e) Deut. xxxi, 9 : " And Moses wrote this 
law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of 

Levi, which bare the ark of the cove- 

Deut. xxxi, 9. _ 1 _ 

nant of the Lord, and unto all the 
elders of Israel." 

This passage may be interpreted in the same 
way as the preceding. 

These brief considerations clearly show that 



EXPOSITIONS AND THE HIES. 183 

the passages of Deuteronomy cited do not, when 
properly understood, contradict the relative posi- 
tions of the priests and Levites, which are so 
precisely defined in the middle books of the Pen- 
tateuch. On the hypothesis that Moses was the 
author of all these books, he had no fear of con- 
tradicting, by loose statements in a hortatory 
book, what he had before clearly defined in leg- 
islative books. The orator does not observe the 
technicalities of logic in an oration; nor does the 
advocate observe the technicalities of law when 
his aim is to persuade the jury. The legislator 
who turns historian, does not recite his laws ver- 
batim when he has occasion to refer to them. AVe 
ought to accord to Moses a like degree of com- 
mon sense. He did not deem it necessary to 
define the relative positions of the priests and 
Levites every time that he had occasion to men- 
tion them; though it is impossible not to recog- 
nize these two distinct classes in Deuteronomy 
itself, which the following passage renders suffi- 
ciently clear : " And it shall be when thou art 
come in unto the land, which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it 
and dwellest therein ; that thou shalt take of the 
first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt 
bring of thy land that the Lord thy God giveth 
thee, and shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go 



184 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

unto the place which the Lord thy God shall 
choose to place his name there. And thou shalt 
go unto the priest that shall be in those days, and 
say unto him," etc., " and the priest shall take the 
basket," etc. (Deut. xxvi, 1-4.) 

2. Professor Smith asserts that "before the 
exile the hierarchical law was not in force, ap- 
parently never had been in force." 

Prof. Smith says : " We know " this " mainly 

from Ezek. xliv." How it can be known from 

that passage, it is difficult to conceive ; 

Ezek. xhv. r ° 7 ' 

for the prophet speaks of two classes 
of religious ministers as having already existed, 
viz., " the Levites that are gone away far from 
me, when Israel went astray " (v. 10), and " the 
priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok that kept 
the charge of my sanctuary, when the children 
of Israel went astray from me" (v. 15). The 
prophet does not say that all the Levites as a 
class had apostatized ; but speaks of " the Levites 
that are gone away from me, when Israel went 
astray." " They shall even bear their iniquity " 
(v. 10). " They shall not come near unto me, to 
do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come 
near to any of my holy things, in the most holy 
place; but they shall bear their shame" (v. 13). 
" But I will make them keepers of the charge of 
the house, for all the service thereof, and for all 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 185 

that shall be done therein " (v. 14). Is the 
clause, " they shall not come near unto me, to do 
the office of a priest" (v. 13), intended to de- 
prive them of functions which they had already 
lawfully discharged, or is it intended to restrict 
them to their own proper duties? May not 
" their iniquity," " their shame," which they 
were to bear, have been the sin of usurping the 
priest's office? It was a renewal of the sin of 
Korah. (Num. xvi, 1-11.) 

We see in Micah an attempt to revive the old 
household priesthood. He " consecrated the Le- 
vite ; and the young man became his priest, and 
was in the house of Micah." (Judges xvii, 12.) 

" The revolt of the ten tribes and the policy 
pursued by Jeroboam led to a great change in 
the position of the Levites. They were the 
witnesses of an appointed order and of a cen- 
tral worship. He wished to make the priests the 
creatures and instruments of the king, and to 
establish a provincial and divided worship. The 
natural result was, that they left the cities as- 
signed to them in the territory of Israel, and 
gathered round the metropolis of Judah." (2 
Chron. xi, 13, 14.) (Smith's " Dictionary of the 
Bible," v. Levites, Vol. II, p. 106.) 

Under the wicked kings of Judah, their con- 
dition must have been very degraded, and their 



186 THE PENTATEUCH. 

privileges restricted. During the reigns of the 
two reforming kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, they 
rise to prominence. This may have tempted 
them, in the reigns of the apostate kings, who 
succeeded Josiah, to usurp the special functions 
of the priesthood. 

The language, " they shall bear their iniquity, 
they shall bear their shame," would seem, from 
the context, to favor the idea of degradation; 
and that this consisted in deposing them from 
the priest's office. If this is the meaning, we 
must conclude either that all the Levites had 
gone away from God, " when Israel went astray/' 
or that those who continued faithful, if any, were 
degraded for the sin of their brethren. Neither 
of these suppositions is very probable. In the 
case of the priests, God did not punish the line 
of Eleazar when the curse fell on that of Itha- 
mar, though they were more intimately connected 
than some of the families of the Levites. But, 
admitting that " bearing their iniquity," and 
" bearing their shame," refer to degradation from 
the priest's office, we are not bound by any rule 
of logic or of interpretation to admit that they 
had held that office, or performed its functions 
constitutionally. An office may be usurped, and 
its duties discharged by a man who would feel 
degraded and humiliated by being deprived of it. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 187 

"With this view of the matter v. 13 may be 
only the reaffirmation of an existing law, and 
not the enactment of a new one. 

But there is another view. . Prof. Curtiss 
("The Levitical Priests," p. 75) says: "We 
know that the house of Aaron was divided into 
two branches, Eleazar and Ithamar. According 
to the Chronicler, all the priests came from these 
two branches. The line of Ithamar was cursed 
in the person of Eli. In the second book of 
Samuel, Zadok and Abiathar appear side by side 
in the priesthood, from which Abiathar, a de- 
scendant of Ithamar, is excluded by Solomon, 
thus leaving the position of high-priest to Zadok 
alone. Henceforth the posterity of Ithamar oc- 
cupy an inferior position. Now, when we read 
the account of Josiah's reformation of the idola- 
trous priests, who are called brethren of other 
priests, and then turn to Ezek. xliv, 10, the 
whole matter becomes clear. In verse 15, of the 
same chapter, the priests, the Levites, the sons 
of Zadok, are mentioned as those who went not 
astray. AVho, then, are the Levites spoken of 
(vs. 10-14) but descendants of Ithamar, who 
might also be termed Levitical priests, who are 
degraded from their priestly office on account of 
their apostasy?" 

In the allusion to Zadok (v. 15), the prophet 



188 THE PENTATEUCH. 

points to the priest, who maintained a faithful 
position toward David and Solomon, as a type of 
the true priestly character. (1 Kings i, 8, 32-45; 
ii, 35.) Taking the passage in a literal sense, 
which Professor Smith's reference to it seems to 
imply, we may interpret it as assigning a histor- 
ical as well as a moral ground for the choice of 
" the sons of Zadok " to come near to Jehovah 
to minister unto him. After the restoration, the 
order of things in the sanctuary was to be the 
same as before the captivity. 

But the writer understands Ezek. xl-xlviii 
as a symbolical vision of Jehovah's kingdom, and 
" the sons of Zadok " as " a race of faithful and 
devoted servants, in whom the outward and the 
inward, the name and the idea, should properly 
coincide, — a priesthood serving God in newness 
of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter, as the 
people whom they represented should also have 
become true Israelites, themselves a royal priest- 
hood offering up spiritual services to the Lord." 
This spiritual kingdom is described in terms ap- 
propriate to a literal theocracy, which attained to 
its highest glory in the reign of Solomon, when 
Zadok was high-priest. 

The pattern of the temple described by Eze- 
kiel may have influenced and guided the builders 
of the second temple, in some things ; but an ex- 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 189 

amination of the vision will show that the pat- 
tern was never carried out. Ezekiel himself, and 
every one acquainted with the physical features 
of the land, must have known that it was incap- 
able of execution. Chapters xl-xlviii represent 
to us symbolically " a rebuilt temple, a reformed 
priesthood, reorganized services, a restored mon- 
archy, a reapportioned territory, a renewed people, 
and, as a consequence, the diffusion of fertility 
and plenty over the whole earth. The vision 
must, therefore, be viewed as strictly symbol- 
ical; the symbols employed being the Mosaic 
ordinances." 

The silence of the books of Samuel and Kings, 
in respect to the priests and Levites, is urged as 
a proof of the position under discussion. 

An argument founded on the silence of a 
record merits little consideration. If silence of the 

■> . , r> j J a books of Sam- 

a historian of our day does not men- ue iand 
tion an institution, does it, therefore, erence to the 

• • • distinction 

not exist ? If a historian, in past time, between 

L m priests and 

made no record of an event, which Levites. 
had no connection with the aim of his history, 
did it, therefore, not take place? 

In considering this argument, it must be borne 
in mind that the circumstances of the Israelites 
(already hinted at, p. 152), from the death of 
Moses to the time of David, were not the most 



190 THE PENT A TE TJCH. 

favorable to the influence of the priests. During 
the time of Joshua, the people were engaged in 
Circum- war f° r tne possession of Canaan. 

SaeSefSt After they had obtained possession of 
the influence it, they were subject to frequent inva- 
sions, defeats, and oppressions. They 
served Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, 
eight years ; Eglon, king of Moab, eighteen years ; 
Jabin, king of Canaan and Midian, seven years. 
They also suffered from internal dissensions, the 
conspiracy of the Shechemites, who made Abime- 
lech king, and the war against the Benjamites. 
There seems, moreover, to have been a tendency 
to lapse into a system of a household instead of 
a hereditary priesthood. (Judges xvii, see p. 169.) 
Saul (1 Sam. xiii, 9, 12) and Uzziah (2 Chron. 
xxvi, 16) manifested a disposition to usurp the 
priest's office. 

But an examination of the books of Samuel 
and Kings, including the book of Joshua, will 
furnish intimations of an existing hierarchical 
law, though we find no formal distinction be- 
tween priests and Levites. 

Probably to evade the reference to a hierarchy, 
the critics of the Kuenen school divide the book 
of Joshua into two parts, " the oldest of which, " 
say Dr. Oort and Dr. Hooykaas, " breathes pre- 
cisely the same spirit as that of Deuteronomy. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 191 

It is, indeed," they continue, " a sequel to that 
book, and describes the fulfillment of 

. Intimations 

the promises there given. Ihe later in the books 

r ° of Samuel 

portion, on the other hand, formed a and Kings 

r ' 7 of an exist- 

portion of the l Book of Origins/ so £f ^ e v rarchi * 
often mentioned. The former por- 
tion, then, was composed shortly before the Baby- 
lonian captivity, and the latter portion in the 
succeeding period." (" The Bible for Learners," 
Vol. I, p. 340; Boston: Roberts Brothers; 1880.) 

The evidence of Joshua is, therefore, ruled out 
by the necessities of the theory, which places the 
date of Deuteronomy about 625 B. C, Evidenceof 
and that of the other books of the ou s t h ^ a t S led 
Pentateuch about 445 B. C. But every critici - 
one, on reading the book of Joshua, if he has 
no theory to maintain, can not very easily resist 
the conviction that it was written by one coeval 
with the events that it records, and by an eye- 
witness of them. The conquest of Canaan by 
the Israelites must, therefore, have been shortly 
before the Babylonian captivity ; and the distri- 
bution of the land among the tribes must have 
been made in the succeeding period. This con- 
clusion is as probable as that respecting the date 
of the Pentateuch. 

As we are not pleading before the tribunal of 
the Kuenen school, we refuse to submit to its 



192 THE PENT A TE VCR. 

ruling, and admit the testimony of the book of 
Joshua, until it is fairly proved that it ought to 
be excluded. 

So far as any notices are given in Joshua of 
the functions of the priesthood, they correspond 
to those described in the Pentateuch. 

(1.) The priesthood is in the family of Aaron. 
(Josh, xiv, 1 ; xxi, 1 ; xxii, 30-32 ; compare Ex. 
Notices in xxviii, 1, and Num. xxxiv, 17.) 
L°ncSon°s f of (2.) The tribe of Levi, being scat- 

the priesthood. tered amQng ^ ^.^ ^^ ^^ ^ 

signed to them, perform their sacred functions. 
(Josh, xiii, 14, 33 ; xiv, 3, 4 ; xviii, 7 ; xxi ; 
compare Num. xviii, 20-24, and xxxv, 7.) 

(3.) The ark was carried on the shoulders of 
the Levites. (Josh, iii, 3, 6, 8 ; vi, 6-9 ; compare 
Num. iv.) 

The books of Samuel and Kings are not ex- 
cluded by the exigencies of the theory that 
assigns a later date to the first and middle books 
of the Pentateuch than to Deuteronomy. What 
is their testimony concerning the point under 
discussion ? Do they afford any intimation that 
" before the exile the hierarchical law was not in 
force, apparently never had been in force ?" 

In 1 Sam. chapters i-iv, a priest at Shiloh is 
called Eli the priest, which implies pre-eminence 
of some kind. The narrative shows that he was 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 193 

high -priest. To him a man of God said: "Thus 
saith the Lord, Did I plainly appear unto the 
house of thy father, when they were in 

. _ ... - Notices in 

Egypt in Pharaoh's house? And did samueiand 

GJ r Kings. 

I choose him out of all the tribes of 
Israel to be my priest, to offer upon my altar, 
to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? 
and did I give unto the house of thy father all 
the offerings made by fire of the children of Is- 
rael ?" (1 Sam. ii, 27-36.) The reference in the 
phrase, " the house of thy father,"* is evidently 
and principally to Aaron, to whom God appeared 
in Egypt, and whom he chose, in the wilderness, 
to be priest. It can not refer to Ithamar, for we 
have no intimation that God appeared to him in 
Egypt, and his father Aaron was priest before 
him. Eli is, therefore, identified in this address 
by the man of God to him with Aaron as to his 
privileges and functions. These are here de- 
scribed in three grades, corresponding to the 
three divisions of the sanctuary : (a) " to offer 
upon my altar ; (b) to burn incense; (c) to wear an 
ephod before me" which the high-priest wore 
when he went officially into the Most Holy 
Place ; and the whole description is evidently 
borrowed from the circumstantial narrative of 



*The phrase, "the house of thy father," indicates the whole 
priestly connection, in all its connections, from Aaron down. 
33 



194 THE PENTATEUCH. 

the appointment of Aaron and his sons to the 
priestly office in Exodus xxviii, xxix. (Compare 
Exodus xxviii, xxix, 9, 30, 44, with Lev. viii, l ff , 
and Num. xviii.) 

1 Sam. xiv, 3, mentions " Ahiah, the son of 
Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, 
the Lord's priest in Shiloh, wearing an ephod." 
This is the same person who is called Ahimelech 
the priest (1 Sam. xxi, 1 ; compare xxii, 9-16, 
20-22), who gave to David the sword of Goliath 
at Nob, where the tabernacle was at that time. 
His son, Abiathar, escaped the massacre of the 
priests of Saul, fled to David (1 Sam. xxiii, 6, 9; 
xxx, 7) ; carried, along with Zadok, by the com- 
mand of David, who was fleeing from Jerusalem, 
the ark of the covenant back to the city ; and was 
" thrust out from being priest unto the Lord " by 
Solomon (1 Kings ii, 27), who put Zadok in his 
place (v. 35). 

Zadok and Abiathar are distinguished from 
the Levites (2 Sam. xv, 24-35) in being called 
priests. The designations, "Ahimelech the priest," 
" Abiathar the priest," " wearing the ephod," and 
" being priest unto the Lord," imply a hierarchy. 
They plainly point to a chief priest. 

Priests are mentioned at the dedication of 
Solomon's temple. (1 Kings viii, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11.) 
In verse 4, they are distinguished from the Le- 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 195 

vites, which plainly implies a gradation. Jero- 
boam " made priests of the lowest of the people 
which were not of the sons of Levi" (1 Kings 
xii, 31), which intimates that he broke the law, 
which gave the right of the priesthood to the 
tribe of Levi alone. This right was disputed by 
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in the wilderness, 
but confirmed to the sons of Levi (Num. xvi). 

In the reign of Athaliah, Jehoiada, the priest, 
crowned Jehoash ; and it appears that he acted as 
regent during the king's minority ; at least the 
young king was under his instruction. (2 Kings 
xi, xii.) 

During the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah was 
"high-priest." (2 Kings xxii, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14; 
xxiii, 4, 24.) In xxiii, 4, Hilkiah is called 
" high-priest," and " the priests of the second 
order" are mentioned. So also in chap, xxv, 18, 
we read : " And the captain of the guard took 
Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second 
priest." 

These passages clearly indicate " a graduated 
hierarchy," at least a priesthood, at the head of 
which was a " high-priest." 

As already intimated, there were probably 
many irregularities between the time of Solomon 
and the captivity, for many of the kings of Ju- 
dah, and all. the kings of Israel were wicked and 



196 THE PENTATEUCH. 

idolatrous men. It is said, to the reproach of 
even some of the good kings, that " the high 
places were not removed : the people sacrificed 
and burnt incense still on the high places." (2 
Kings xiv, 4; xv, 4, 35.) After the erection of 
the tabernacle and of the temple this was an 
irregularity. On the contrary, it is recorded, in 
commendation of Hezekiah, that " he removed 
the high places, and brake the images, and cut 
down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen 
serpent that Moses had made." (2 Kings xviii, 4.) 

What is merely intimated in the books of 
Samuel and Kings is clearly stated in the books 
of Chronicles, which give " a graduated hierarchy 
of priests and Levites." 

But the Chronicler is a suspected person by 
the critics of the Kuenen school. He is accused 
of narrowness. " In passing judgment upon him 
TheChron- we mus * never forget that he really 
lcler - loved the temple service. The neces- 

sity of being constantly on our guard against 
accepting his statements does not give us a pleas- 
ant impression of this man; and it is therefore 
all the more necessary to the formation of a fair 
estimate that we should remember how important 
an element of religion the sacred music really 
supplied, not only to him, but to many of his 
countrymen also." He " is far from being a 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 197 

trustworthy guide for the history of the period 
before the captivity." (Dr. H. Oort and Dr. I. 
Hooykaas, " Bible for Learners," Vol. II, pp. 
533, 534, 535.) 

The books of Chronicles, in their present form, 
belong to a time after the exile (Ibid. p. 532) ; 
and hence it is not strange that he should take 
little interest in the affairs of the northern king- 
dom, which had become extinct. In the cir- 
cumstances, it is natural that he should produce 
" merely a Jewish chronicle." The older Israel- 
itish historians speak of the prophets — the special 
messengers of God to a rebellious people — the 
Chronicler speaks of the priests and Levites, the 
regular ministry. 

Why the Chronicler should fall under the 
suspicion of the authors of " The Bible for 
Learners," and of the school to which they be- 
long, is easy to conceive; for his statements, if 
admitted to be historical, are fatal to their theory. 
But there is no ground to suspect his honesty and 
his credibility as a historian. When he copies 
from the books of Samuel and Kings, he copies 
literally. We are, therefore, authorized to be- 
lieve that he deals in the same way with the 
other documents to which he refers. There were, 
in his time, historical works relating to the kings 
of Judah and of Israel in existence. To such 



198 THE PENTATEUCH. . 

works he often refers. For his first book he evi- 
dently had access to genealogical tables and registers. 
He cites the following sources: (1) "The 
book of Samuel the seer, the book of Nathan the 
prophet, and the book of Gad the seer" (1 Chron. 

Sources of the Xxix > 29 ) '> ( 2 ) " the book of Nathan 

chronicles. the p rop h e t, the prophecy of Ahijah 
the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer" 
(2 Chron. ix, 29) ; (3) " the book of Shemaiah 
the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning 
genealogies" (2 Chron. xii, 15) ; (4) "the story of 
the prophet Iddo " (2 Chron. xiii, 22) ; (5) " the 
book of the kings of Judah and Israel " (2 Chron. 
xvi, 11); (6) "the book of Jehu the son of Ha- 
nani, who is mentioned in the book of the Kings 
of Israel " (2 Chron. xx, 34) ; (7) " the story of the 
book of the Kings " (2 Chron. xxiv, 27) ; (8) " the 
book of the Kings of Judah and Israel " (2 Chron. 
xxv, 26); (9) "Isaiah the prophet" (2 Chron. 
xxvi, 22) ; (10) " the book of the Kings of Is- 
rael and Judah" (xxvii, 7); (11) "the vision of 
Isaiah the prophet, and the book of the Kings of 
Judah and Israel " (xxxii, 32) ; (12) " the book of 
the Kings of Israel . . . the sayings of the seers " 
(2 Chron. xxxiii, 18, 19); (13) "the book of 
the Kings of Israel and Judah " (xxxv, 27) ; 
(14) " the book of the Kings of Israel and Ju- 
dah" (xxxvi, 8). 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 199 

This list of sources can be reduced, seeing 
that the same work is referred to several times. 
In the enumeration (1) refers to David; (2) to 
Solomon ; (3) to Rehoboam ; (4) to Abijah ; (5) to 
Asa ; (6) to Jehoshaphat ; (7) to Joash ; (8) to 
Amaziah ; (9) to Uzziah ; (10) to Jotham ; (11) to 
Hezekiah; (12) to Manasseh ; (13) to Josiah; 
(14) to Jehoiakim. 

The Chronicler, therefore, had before him his- 
torical documents covering the whole time from 
David to the captivity ; and these documents 
must have been known to the people, otherwise 
it is inconceivable that he should refer to them. 
If they were fictitious, he could not escape ex- 
posure ; if they were true, his contemporaries had 
an opportunity of judging of their truth. On 
the hypothesis of the Kuenen school, the Chron- 
icler was a knave ; and the Jews furnished the 
most remarkable instance of mental imbecility 
found in all history ; for they were not living in 
a mythical period when he wrote, but in the 
most enlightened period of the ancient world. 

We now turn to those passages in the Chron- 
icler which speak of the priests and Levites, to 
see what he says of " a graduated hierarchy. " 

In 1 Chron. xv, we have a detailed account of 
the preparations made by David to bring the 
ark to Jerusalem. The parallel text, 2 Sam. vi, 



200 THE PENT A TE VCK. 

11-23, gives a brief description of its removal; 
but here mention is made (1) of the erection of 
the tent for the reception of the ark (v. 1) ; of 
the king's conference with the priests and Le- 
vites (vs. 2-16) ; (3) the removal of the ark (vs. 
17-28) ; (4) the description of the first solemn 
service before the ark in its sanctuary in Jerusa- 
lem (chap. xvi). 

In chap, xv, 2, David says : " None ought to 
carry the ark of God but the Levites : for them 
Notices in natn * ne Lord chosen to carry the ark 
^graduated °f God, and to minister unto him for- 
ever." Here there is evident allusion 
to Num. i, 50; iv, 15; vii, 9; x, 17, with which 
David must have been acquainted. In verse 11, 
the king clearly distinguishes between the priests 
and the Levites; and in verse 4, between the 
latter and "the children of Aaron." He mentions 
" the sons of Kohath " first (v. 5), for the carry- 
ing the most holy vessels of the sanctuary be- 
longed to the Kohathites, the family from which 
Aaron, the high-priest, sprang. (Num. iv, 15 ; 
vii, 9.) Levites were appointed to be " singers 
with instruments of music, psalteries and harps 
and cymbals," for the solemn occasion, (vs. 
16-22.) " Doorkeepers for the ark " were also 
appointed (v. 23) ; and seven priests to " blow 
with the trumpets," according to the directions 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 201 

in Num. x, 1-10, and the example of the siege 
of Jericho. (Josh, vi, 4-6.) 

In the first solemn service before the ark in 
Jerusalem (1 Chron. xvi), David appointed cer- 
tain of the Levites to minister before the ark of 
the Lord, and to record, and to thank and praise 
the Lord God of Israel," and " priests with 
trumpets continually before the ark of the cove- 
nant of God " (vs. 4-6) ; and " he left . . . 
Zadok, the priest, and his brethren the priests, 
before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high 
place that was at Gibeon, to offer burnt-offerings 
unto the Lord upon the altar of the burnt-offer- 
ing continually morning and evening, to do ac- 
cording to all that is written in the law of the 
Lord, which he commanded Israel " (vs. 37, 39, 
40). (Compare the prescriptions of the law, Ex- 
odus xxix, 37, 38 ; Num. xxviii, 3-6.) 

The mention of Gibeon as the place of the 
tabernacle and of the altar of burnt-offering 
(1 Chron. xvi, 39, 40), proves nothing against 
the assumption that burnt-offerings were also 
offered in Jerusalem, the abode of the ark. 
(Compare 1 Chron. xxi, 26-29.) 

The distribution and ministerial functions of 
the tribe of Levi, at the close of David's reign, 

fill four chapters; viz., 1 Chron. xxiii xxiv. 

The king numbered the Levites, " and divided 



202 THE PENTATEUCH. 

them into courses among the sons of Levi" 
(xxiii, 3-6), according to the three well-known 
branches of this tribe. " Their office was to wait 
on the sons. of Aaron for the service of the house 
of the Lord" (vs. 28-32). In verse 13, it is 
stated that " Aaron was separated that he should 
sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons 
forever, to burn incense before the Lord, to min- 
ister unto him, and to bless his name forever." 
(See Num. vi, 23; compare Num. xvi, 3, and 
Deut. xxi, 5.) 

The sons of Aaron, i. e., his descendants, were 
divided by lot into twenty-four orders (1 Chron. 
xxiv, 1-18); and the Chronicler continues (v. 19), 
" These were the orderings of them in their serv- 
ice to come into the house of the Lord, according 
to their manner under Aaron their father [liter- 
ally, according to their law by the hand of Aaron 
their father], as the Lord God of Israel had com- 
manded him." (Num. iv.) Then follow the di- 
visions of the singers and of the porters, " for 
the service of the house of God." (Chapters xxv 
and xxvi.) 

David, before his death, enjoined on Solomon 
the observance of this hierarchical arrangement 
(1 Chron. xxviii, 21), and Solomon obeyed his 
father's injunction. (2 Chron. v, and vii, 4-7.) 

During the reigns of some of David's sue- 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 203 

cessors, when both kings and priests forsook the 
worship of Jehovah, it is probable that many of 
the hierarchical arrangements were neglected; 
not only neglected, but infringed ; yet the priests 
vindicated their privileges and authority when 
King Uzziah invaded the priest's office and at- 
tempted to burn incense unto the Lord. (2 Chron. 
xx vi, 16-20.) In the reigns of the good kings, 
Hezekiah and Josiah, the hierarchical ordinances 
of David were observed. (2 Chron. xxix, 12-35; 
xxx, 15-27; xxxi, 2-19; xxxiv, 9-13; xxxv, 
2-18.) 

It is proper to observe, in connection with 
these passages, that David refers for his author- 
ity, in the matter of constituting the hierarchy, 
to " the word of the Lord by Moses " (1 Chron. 
xv, 15), and to " the law of the Lord, which he 
commanded Israel" (xvi, 40); Hezekiah, to "the 
commandment of David" (2 Chron. xxix, 25, 27), 
and to " the law of Moses the man of God " 
(xxx, 16) ; Josiah, to "the word of the Lord by 
the hand of Moses" (xxxv, 6). 

It is very clear from the whole narrative that all 
these kings had the Pentateuch law before them. 

There is a very close connection between 
Chronicles and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
Ezra begins with the same edict of Cyrus with 
which the Chronicles end. Ezra and Nehemiah 



204 THE PENTATEUCH. 

are united in the closest manner by JSTeh. viii— 
xii, 26. The three books form a whole. Ezra 
Ezra and continues Chronicles, and Nehemiah 
Nehemiah. con ti nU es and finishes Ezra. In all 
the three books substantially the same subject is 
treated ; viz., the history of the city of Jerusa- 
lem, the worship of God in it, and the most im- 
portant persons who rendered services to it. 

Now in these books — Ezra and Nehemiah — 
the priests and the Levites are clearly distin- 
guished ; and some were put out of the priest- 
hood because they were not registered " among 
those that were reckoned by genealogy." (Ezra 
ii, 62.) (See Ezra i, 5; ii, 36-39, 40, 41, 42, 61, 
62, 70; iii, 2-6, 8-12; vi, 16-18, 20; vii, 7, 13, 
24; viii, 15-20, 24, 29, 30, 33; x, 18; Neh. vii, 
39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 63, 73; viii, 9; ix, 4, 5; x, 8, 
9, 28, 34, 38; xi, 3, 10, 15, 18, 20, 22; xii, 1-8, 
12, 22-24, 27, 28, 35, 41-47; xiii, 10-13.) 

These passages warrant the following conclu- 
sions, viz. : 

(1) The priests and Levites, the singers and 

porters, kept registers of their geneal- 

Conclusions. . . . .. N 

ogies during the captivity. (Ezra n, 62.) 

(2) The hierarchical distinctions and services 
that existed from the time of David to the cap- 
tivity were observed after the return from exile. 
(Ezra vi, 16-22.) 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 205 

(3) The distinction between priests and Le- 
vites and their distinct services are said to have 
been prescribed in the book of Moses. (Ezra 
vi, 18.) 

(4) A new temple w T as built to replace the one 
that had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar 
(which was modeled after the tabernacle), and 
" the vessels of the house of the Lord, which 
Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jeru- 
salem, were restored by Cyrus to the second 
temple. (Ezra i, 7-9 ; iii, 8-13.) 

(5) The succession of the tabernacle, the tem- 
ple of Solomon, and the second temple, implies a 
continuity of tabernacle and temple services; and 
this continuity of services would seem to imply 
"a graduated hierarchy" of priests and Levites, 
before the time of Ezra, who refers to the law 
of Moses as the constitutive law. (Ezra vi, 18.) 

(6) This law must have been what critics call 
the Levitico-Elohistic law contained in the mid- 
dle books of the Pentateuch. 

(7) If so, " the strict hierarchical law" was in 
force before the exile. 

3. Prof. Smith having adduced Ezek. xliv in 
proof that " the strict hierarchical law was not 
in force, apparently never had been in force, 
before the exile," concludes : " If so, the Le- 
vi tical element is the latest thing in the Pen- 



206 THE PENTATEUCH. 

tateuch ... or, on the opposite view, the 
hierarchic theory existed as a legal programme 
long before the exile, though it was fully carried 
out only after Ezra." 

We have endeavored to show (p. 168ft,) that 
the language of Ezekiel does not bear the con- 
struction which Prof. Smith puts upon it. If 
the testimony of the Chronicler is admitted, the 
evidence is clear and explicit that " the hierarchic 
theory existed" not only " as a legal programme," 
but "was fully carried out," in existing institu- 
tions, long before the time of Ezra. If his tes- 
timony is not admitted, the many intimations in 
the books of Samuel and Kings to the same 
effect are sufficient to render Prof. Smith's con- 
clusion very doubtful. 

It seems almost incredible that any one should 
believe that " the hierarchical law was not in force " 
before the time of Ezra, if he has any regard to 
the statements of the book which bears his name. 
"When the seventh month," after their return 
from captivity " was come," we are informed by 
that book, " the people gathered themselves to- 
gether as one man to Jerusalem. Then stood up 
Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the 
priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and 
his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of 
Israel, to offer burnt-offerings thereon, as it is 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 207 

written in the law of Moses the man of God. And 
they set the altar upon his bases; for fear was upon 
them because of the people of those countries ; 
and they offered burnt-offerings thereon unto the 
Lord, even burnt-offerings morning and evening. 
They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is 
written, and offered the daily burnt-offerings by 
number, according to the custom, as the duty of 
every day required ; and afterward offered the 
continual burnt-offering, both of the new moons, 
and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were 
consecrated, and of every one that willingly 
offered a free-will offering unto the Lord. From 
the first day of the seventh month began they 
to offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord. But the 
foundation of the temple of the Lord was not 
yet laid. 

" Now in the second year of their coining 
unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the sec- 
ond month, began Zerubbabel the son of Sheal- 
tiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the 
remnant of their brethren the priests and the 
Levites, and all they that were come out of the 
captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Le- 
vites from twenty years old and upward, to set 
forward the work of the house of the Lord" 
(iii. 1-6, 8). 

Masons and carpenters were hired to build 



208 THE PENTATEUCH. 

the temple; meat, and drink, and oil were given 
to the Zidonians and Tyrians " to bring cedar- 
trees from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa, according 
to the grant that they had of Cyrus, king of 
Persia" (v. 7). 

The foundation of the second temple was laid 
with great pomp and ceremony. " The priests in 
their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the 
sons of Asaph with cymbals " praised " the Lord 
after the ordinance of David, king of Israel. 
And they sang together by course in praising 
and giving thanks unto the Lord; because he is 
good, for his mercy endureth forever toward Is- 
rael " (vs. 10, 11). The people responded with a 
great shout ; " but many of the priests and Le- 
vites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient 
men, that had seen the first house, when the 
foundation of this house was laid before their 
eyes, wept with a loud voice" (v. 12). 

This narrative evidently points to hierarchical 
institutions and ritual, not introduced then for 
the first time, but established in the times of 
David ; and re-established after the return from 
the captivity. 

4. Smith says: " The chronology of the com- 
position of the Pentateuch may be said to center 
in the question, whether the Levitico-Elohistic 
document, which embraces most of the laws in 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 209 

Leviticus with large parts of Exodus and Num- 
bers, is earlier or later than Deuteronomy." 

That question will now occupy our attention. 

A few brief considerations will show the 
supreme absurdity of the hypothesis which fixes 
the date of Deuteronomy in the reign of Josiah, 
about 625 B. C, and ascribes its authorship, per- 
haps, to Hilkiah, who wrote it as a reform pro- 
gramme, and passed it off as the writing of Mo- 
ses, who was in no respect the author of it; and 
its material, the advocates of this theory say, does 
not rest on a reliable Mosaic tradition. 

" Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law 
of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah an- 
swered and said to Shaphan the scribe, Findin of 
I have found the book of the law in the g£ k by of 
house of the Lord. And Hilkiah de- mikiah - * 
livered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan car- 
ried the book to the king. . . . Then Shaphan 
the scribe told the king saying, Hilkiah the priest 
hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it 
before the king. And it came to pass, when the 
king had heard the words of the law, that he 
rent his clothes." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14-19.) 

"Hilkiah the priest found a book." What 
book? He says "a book [the book*] of the law 

* The word " book " in the original, is definite by virtue of its being 
in the construct state, just as the word " law " following, which is with- 
out the article in the Hebrew text. 

H 



210 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

of the Lord given by Moses." We would natu- 
rally infer that Hilkiah meant the whole Torah, 
what we call the Mosaic law, though it is said 
that he meant only Deuteronomy. This point it 
is not essential to our purpose to discuss. The 
critics may have it their own way. 

This book, it appears, had been lost. This is 
not strange, when we consider the long preva- 
lence of idolatry and ungodliness during the 
reigns of Manasseh and his son Amon, who pre- 
ceded Josiah. " Manasseh made Judah and the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse 
than the heathen, whom the Lord had destroyed 
before the children of Israel." (2 Chron. xxxiii, 9.) 
He built again the high places which Hezekiah, his 
father, had broken down, erected altars to Baalim, 
made groves, worshiped all the host of heaven, built 
altars to them in the two courts of the house of 
the Lord, caused his children to pass through the 
fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom, observed 
times, used enchantments and witchcraft, dealt 
with a familiar spirit, and with wizards, and set 
a carved image in the house of God. (2 Chron. 
xxxiii, 3-7.) 

It is probable that the priests, to whom the 
keeping of the law was intrusted, seeing the mad 
idolatry of the king, and his determination to 
subvert their whole system of worship, hid the 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 211 

book of the law, lest their infatuated king might 
destroy it, for it was a standing rebuke to his 
idolatry. 

It is true that Manasseh, when he was a cap- 
tive in Babylon, repented, " besought the Lord 
his God, and humbled himself greatly before the 
God of his fathers." (2 Chron. xxxiii, 12); and 
that, after his restoration to his kingdom, he 
abolished the idolatrous worship which he had 
established ; yet his reformation was partial com- 
pared with that under his grandson Josiah. 

" The book of the law," therefore, may have 
been hidden sixty years before it was found by 
Hilkiah ; and the copy that he found may have 
been the autograph of Moses. This was nothing 
impossible, for Josiah succeeded his father about 
641 B. C. ; consequently the age of the book, 
supposing it to have been the autograph of 
Moses, would have been very short compared 
with that of existing manuscripts of the New 
Testament. 

But this book, some say, was not found, but 
was written, perhaps by Hilkiah, as " a reform 
programme." 

Hezekiah, many years before this time, com- 
menced a very general reformation, and was 
guided, it seems, by " the law of Moses the man 
of God" (2 Chron. xxx, 16); and Josiah, ten 



212 THE PENTATEUCH. 

years before this time, accomplished a very thor- 
ough and extensive reformation, without any pro- 
gramme. (2 Chron. xxxiv, 3-7.) It seems, how- 
ever, that he had some knowledge of " the ways 
of David his father " (v. 2), which renders it 
probable that he endeavored to restore religious 
worship to the condition in which it was in the 
reign of " the son of Jesse." 

" In the eighteenth year of his reign, when he 
had purged the land, and the house, he sent Sha- 
phan, ... to repair the house of the Lord 
his God." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 3-13.) While these 
repairs were going on, Hilkiah found the book 
of the law, which is favorable to the hypothesis 
that it had been hidden to preserve it from the 
idolatrous rage of Manasseh. 

But the real difficulty on the part of those 
who attribute its authorship to Hilkiah, or 
to any other person of his time, has yet to 
be met. 

" And it came to pass, when the king had 
heard the words of the law, that he rent his 
clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and 
Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son 
of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah 
a servant of the king's, saying, Go, inquire of the 
Lord for me, and for them that are left in Is- 
rael and in Judah, concerning the words of the 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 213 

book that is found. . . . And Hilkiah, and 
they that the king had appointed, went to Hul- 
dah the prophetess, . . . And she answered 
them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell 
ye the man that sent you to me, thus saith the 
Lord, Behold I will bring evil upon this place, 
and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the 
curses that are written in the book which they 
have read before the king of Judah," etc. (2 
Chron. xxxiv, 19-28.) 

It seems that Huldah, the prophetess, w T as 
either in the secret of the forgery, or that she 
believed that Hilkiah the priest had actually 
u found " the " book of the law of the Lord 
given by Moses." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14.) Had 
she known it to be a forgery, it is not probable 
that she would have said to the messengers of 
the king, " Thus saith the Lord God of Israel," 
etc. (v. 23) ; but if she believed it to be the 
" book of the law of the Lord given by Moses," 
then her reply to the messengers was both fitting 
and timely. 

But is it probable that the king w T ould have 
rent his clothes, and have said, "great is the 
wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, 
because our fathers have not kept the word of 
the Lord, to do after all that is written in this 
book" (vs. 19, 21), had he not been convinced 



214 THE PENTATEUCH. 

that the book was the " law of the Lord given 
by Moses?" He must certainly have recollected 
that such a book existed in the days of their 
fathers, the precepts of which they had "not 
kept/' otherwise he would very naturally have 
inquired how Hilkiah came by it. We might 
suppose the king to address Hilkiah thus: King: 
Hilkiah, you say that you found this book? 
Hilkiah: Yes. King: Who wrote it? Hilkiah: 
Moses. King: There is no tradition among our 
people that Moses wrote a book of this kind. 
Hilkiah: Nevertheless, he did. King: Where 
did you find it? Hilkiah: In the temple. King: 
Who have had the keeping of the writings of 
Moses ? Hilkiah : The priests. King : Have the 
priests been so negligent of their duty as to lose 
a book of so much importance as this, — a book 
on obedience to which the welfare of our nation 
depends ? Hilkiah : To speak the truth, I wrote 
it myself. King: For what purpose did you 
write it? Hilkiah: For a reform programme. 
King : Why did you attribute it to Moses ? Hil- 
kiah : To obtain authority for it among the peo- 
ple. King: I advise you, Hilkiah, to make a 
public confession, and write no more reform pro- 
grammes until you have reformed yourself. A 
priest's lips should speak the truth. 

Moreover, how could it be possible to palm 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 215 

off a forgery upon a whole nation, king, princes, 
priests, Levites, and people? They must have 
been sadly deficient in critics. They had no such 
universities as those of Greifswald and Leyden 
among them ; but Hilkiah must have been a 
match for Kuenen in constructing history and 
" suspending it upon airy nothing." 

It can easily be conceived how a book or 
poem, having little or no practical relation to the 
people, might be a forgery ; but how a book like 
Deuteronomy, or the Pentateuch, containing na- 
tional history, biographical sketches, geographical 
descriptions, and national laws, could be a for- 
gery, is almost inconceivable. 

The case of Deuteronomy is very different 
from that of Ecclesiastes, even if it could be 
proved that the latter book was not written by 
Solomon ; for, in the first place, the writer of 
Ecclesiastes calls himself Koheieth, though from 
the superscription the reader would very natu- 
rally take him to be Solomon ; and, in the second 
place, the book of Ecclesiastes treats of things of 
universal, and not of national and local interest. 
But Deuteronomy names Moses as its author, and 
contains " statutes and judgments" for the chil- 
dren of Israel (Deut. iv, 1), and denounces curses 
upon him " that confirmeth not all the words of 
this law to do them." (Deut. xxvii, 26.) Josiah 



216 THE PENTATEUCH. 

said : " Great is the wrath of the Lord that is 
poured out upon us, because our fathers have not 
kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that 
is written in this book." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 21.) 

Is it possible that such a book could be a for- 
gery? Can any one imagine that a whole nation, 
an enlightened nation as the Jews were, could be 
so deceived? 

The hypothesis that Deuteronomy was written 
by Hilkiah, or by some other person, in the reign 
of Josiah, must be dismissed as absurd. 

The book — perhaps the whole Torah or Pen- 
tateuch — was lost for some time, and found by 
Hilkiah the priest, in the time of Josiah. 

Suppose the book to have been 

When was . 

Deuteronomy Deuteronomy, when was it written? 

written ? J ? 

Is the date ,of its composition earlier 
or later than that of the other books of the Pen- 
tateuch ? 

It is acknowldged by all that it existed in the 
time of Josiah, about 625 B. C. As already 
stated, some believe that it was written at that 

time ; but this opinion makes Hilkiah 

It existed in , . , , . , . , , , 

the reign of a knave; the king and the whole na- 

Josiah. . . . 

tion a set or dupes. It is simply 
absurd. According to the narrative (2 Chron. 
xxxiv, 14), Hilkiah found it. It must, therefore 
have existed before this time. Josiah believed 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 217 

that it existed in the days of " our [their] fa- 
thers." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 21.) 

The book of Deuteronomy existed in the reign 
of Amaziah, 828 B. C. " As soon as 

. , t . t n i . t . It existed in 

the kingdom was confirmed in his the reign of 
hand, he slew his servants, which had 
slain the king his father. But the children of 
the murderers he slew not : according unto that 
which is written in the book of the law of Mo- 
ses wherein the Lord commanded saying, The 
fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 
nor the children be put to death for the fathers; 
but every man shall be put to death for his own 
sin." (2 Kings xiv, 5, 6.) This law is recorded 
in Deut. xxiv, 16; consequently Amaziah must 
have been acquainted with that book. 

At the coronation of Joash, 868 B. C, a 
statement is made which reminds the reader of 
Deut. xxxi, 26. Jehoiada brought forth 
the king's son, and put the crown upon the We of 
him, and gave him the testimony. (2 
Kings xi, 12.) The Hebrew text reads: " He 
brought forth the king's son and put the crown 
upon him, and the testimony." It is generally 
agreed that this "testimony" was the "Book of 
the Law " which was kept in the ark of the cove- 
nant. (Deut. xxxi, 26.) 

Jehoshaphat (908 B. C.) was evidently ac- 



218 THE PENT A TE UCH, 

quainted with the book of Deuteronomy. When 

the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites " came 

against him to battle," he prayed to 

the time of the Lord for deliverance, and alluded 

Jehoshaphat. , 

in his prayer to Deut. ii, 4, 9, 19, the 
only passage in which the fact mentioned is found. 
The reference is plain from the fact that the king 
uses the term Mount Seir — used in the corre- 
sponding passage of Deuteronomy — instead of the 
more common one of Edom. (2 Chron. xx, 1-12.) 

It was also according to Deuteronomy that he 
made his judicial arrangements. (Compare 2 
Chron. xix, 5, with Deut. xvi, 18; 2 Chron. xix, 
8, with Deut. xvii, 8, 9 ; 2 Chron. xix, 7, with 
Deut. xvi, 19.) 

Solomon's prayer, at the dedication of the 
temple, is filled with thoughts and language bor- 
rowed from Deuteronomy, which proves that he 
was acquainted with the book. (Compare 1 Kings 
viii, 15-54, with Deuteronomy iv, 10, 20, 39; vi, 
1, 2 ; vii, 6, 7, 9-12, 19 ; ix, 29 ; x, 14; xi, 2, 17; 
xii, 5, 10, 11 ; xiv, 2 ; xxi, 10; xxv, 1 ; xxvi, 15, 
18, 19; xxviii, 15, 21-52; xxx, 1-3.) 

When " the Lord appeared to Sol- 
it existed in xl -, , . „ , , 

time of Solo- omon the second time and spoke 
with him, he used the language of 
Deuteronomy. (Compare 1 Kings ix, 7-9 with 
Deut. xxviii, 37 ; xxix, 24-26.) 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 219 

Deut. xii, 5-12 must have been in the mind 
of David when he proposed to build the temple 
(2 Sam. vii, 1-3, 10-12; 1 Chron. T 

v ... .It existed in 

xxii, 7-13); for the fulfillment of the g£« d meof 
condition, " rest from all your enemies " 
(Deut. xii, 10) is distinctly mentioned. (2 Sam. 
vii, 1, 11.) David's charge to Solomon (1 Chron. 
xxii, 13) has nearly the identical phraseology of 
Moses' charge to Joshua. (Deut, xxxi, 7, 8.) 

The points of contact between Judges and 
Deuteronomy are too numerous to be accidental, 
and show clearly that the author of Re f erences to 
the "Book of Judges" was acquainted *£$f™ n ' 
with it ; and consequently that it existed u ges * 
before his time ; that its history is earlier than 
that of Judges. (Compare Judges ii, 2,'with Deut. 
vii, 2, and xii, 3; Judges ii, 3, with Deut. vii, 16 ; 
Judges ii, 22, with Deut. viii, 2, 16, and xiii, 3; 
Judges v, 4, with Deut. xxxiii, 2 ; Judges vii, 2, 
with Deut. viii, 17; Judges xi, 15, with Deut. 
ii, 9, 19 ; Judges xi, 18, 19, with Deut. ii, 1-8, 
26; Judges xi, 20, 21, 22, with Deut. ii, 32, 33, 
36 ; Judges xi, 26, with Deut. ix, 4, 5, and xviii, 
12 ; Judges xiii, 22, with Deut. v, 26 ; Judges 
xvii, 6, with Deut. xii, 8 ; Judges xviii, 10, with 
Deut. viii, 9 ; Judges xx, 12, 13, with Deut xiii, 
13, and xvii, 12; Judges xxi, 13, with Deut. 
xx, 10.) 



220 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

It has been argued that Deuteronomy was not 
extant in the time of Joshua, otherwise he would 
not have punished the sons and daughters of 
Achan along with their father (Josh, vii, 24, 25), 
contrary to the prohibition of Deuteronomy 
xxiv, 16. 

This objection to the existence of Deuteron- 
omy at that time assumes that the family of 
Achan were not accomplices in his sin. The 
Objection to history does not say that they were; 
totlfJSe of but they may have been. If they were, 
founded on they were punished for their own iniq- 

Josh.vii, 24, 25. ., t, , ., .i 

uity. JBut grant that they were not 
accomplices, their punishment was not a viola- 
tion of the prohibition contained in Deut. xxiv, 
16, for Joshua acted by divine command. (Josh, 
vii, 15.) The law of Deut. xxiv, 16, has respect 
to cases of ordinary guilt; but the crime of 
Achan was sacrilege, consisting in the appropri- 
ation of spoils devoted to destruction as a proof of 
God's detestation of idolatr}^ ; and his punishment 
was perfectly consistent with Deut. xiii, 12-17. 

The parallel between Deut. xxvii, 2-13, and 
Josh viii, 30-35, shows that Joshua was ac- 
quainted with the book of Deuteronomy, that he 
was guided by it when he "built an altar unto 
Jehovah God of Israel in Mount Ebal," and that 
he considered Moses its author. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 221 

The Lord's charge to Joshua (I, 3-9), com- 
pared with Deut. xi, 24, 25, and xxxi, References to 
6-12, furnishes another parallel be- ^Z° n ' 
tween the two books implying the 
existence of Deuteronomy at that time, unless 
the sacred writer puts falsehood in the mouth of 
Jehovah — a supposition which can not be enter- 
tained for a moment. 

Joshua, moreover (i, 13-15), quotes the direc- 
tions given by Moses to the Reubenites, Gadites, 
and the half tribe of Manasseh (Deut iii, 18-20), 
to remind these tribes of their duty to pass over 
Jordan and assist their brethren in the conquest 
of Canaan. 

We have now traced the book of Deuteron- 
omy from the time of Josiah down to the time 
of Moses, and seen that Hilkiah, Josiah, Ama- 
ziah, Joash, Jehoshaphat, Solomon, David, the 
author of the book of Judges, and Joshua were 
acquainted with its contents ; and that Moses was 
believed to have been its author. 

Deuteronomy presupposes the preceding books 
of the Pentateuch, and consequently it is later in 
date than these books. 

It brings before us a series of farewell dis- 
courses delivered by Moses to the Israelitish na- 
tion ; and this fact would lead us to expect a greater 
degree of subjectivity than in the objective form 



222 THE PENTATEUCH. 

of the law. The author gives particular promi- 
nence to his personal views and feelings. The 
book has a prophetical coloring, and is a model 
of prophetical discourse. From its nature, in 
this respect, we may explain how a later proph- 
etism (Jeremiah and Ezekiel) connected itself 
with it. This character of the book is what the 
author is fully concious of. Moses himself ap- 
pears here as a prophet (Deut. xviii, 15ff), and 
the prophetic body which succeeded him is re- 
garded as simply carrying on his work as an 
institution standing in intimate connection with it. 
As all subsequent Hebrew prophecy has its 
root in the Law, and takes its point of departure 
from it, so also does this book. The Law — 
the objective divine act comes first. Prophecy — 
w T hich is the subjective reflection of the Law, 
the application of it in its importance to the life 
of the individual as well as to the life of the 
nation — follows. In the same manner Deuteron- 
omy comes after the other books of the Penta- 
teuch. It not only treats of the Law in its sub- 
jective application, but carries it out, develops, 
and completes it. Hence, there is found in it an 
interpretation ot the legal and prophetical ele- 
ments. But this mutual interpretation is so 
intimate, that the prophetic element itself has 
received, at least partially, a legal coloring and 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 223 

the legal element a prophetical coloring. From 
this relation of the legal to the prophetical in 
Deuteronomy, there follows, on the one hand, the 
later composition of the book as compared with 
the other books of the Pentateuch ; and, on the 
other hand, the right of Moses to be considered 
the author of it. (Havernick's " Historico-Crit- 
ical Introduction to the Pentateuch ;" Edin- 
burgh : T. &T. Clark; 1850.) 

A perusal of Deuteronomy can not fail to 
suggest to the reader that it sustains an intimate 
connection with the preceding books Deuteron . 
and presupposes their existence. The S s P the ex- 



istence of the 



opening words would seem to imply preceding 
that the discourses of Moses and the 
events up to the eleventh month of the fortieth 
year (Deut. i, 3), had already been recorded ; for 
it is difficult to conceive why an author should 
give the details of the close of a history and 
omit those of its beginning. 

The place is defined : " These be the words 
which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side 
Jordan [beyond Jordan] in the wilderness, in the 
plain over against the Red Sea, between Paran, 
and Tophet, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Diz- 
ahab." (Deut. i, 1.) 

The time is defined : " And it came to pass in 
the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the 



224 THE PENTATEUCH. 

first day of the month, that Moses spake unto 
the children of Israel, according to all that the 
Lord had given him in commandment unto 
them" (v. 3). The subject-matter is defined: 
" On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, be- 
gan Moses to declare this law" (v. 5). 

The word rendered " declare " (Heb. "^3; lxx, 
dtaoaipVjGat) properly means " to explain, to dig 
out the sense, and to set it forth ivhen dug out." 
(Tregelles' " Gesenius' Lexicon," s. v.) This ren- 
dering implies that the law, which Moses began 
to explain, was already in existence. Its pre- 
vious existence was a necessary condition to Mo- 
ses' explanation of it. 

The phrase " this law " seems to refer to what 
follows, and may be rendered " the following law." 
But this rendering creates a difficulty by neces- 
sitating the reference of the demonstrative "this" 
to the fifth chapter, thus separating the pronoun 
from its subject by four chapters. It may, how- 
ever, refer to what precedes ; and then the phrase 
"this law" might be rendered " the foregoing law." 
This is consistent with the grammatical construc- 
tion of the demonstrative pronoun, here em- 
ployed, in Hebrew. (Nordheimer's " Critical 
Grammar of the Hebrew Language," Vol. II, 
Sec. 887, 2, p. 121.) "Substantially, it is no 
other than the law given in the earlier books. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 225 

Substantially, there is throughout but one law." 
(Keil and Delitzsch, in loc.) 

A knowledge of the historical and legislative 
contents of the preceding books is presupposed 
in Deuteronomy, which is a conclusive proof of 
their previous existence. The author repeatedly 
refers to the promises of God made to the pa- 
triarchs, as having been partly fulfilled and as 
partly to be accomplished. (Deut. i, 7, 8, 11 ; iv, 
31; vi, 10; vii, 8, 12, 13; viii, 1, 18; ix, 5; x, 
11, 22; xi, 9, 21, etc.) 

Compare Deut. i, 9ff., with Exodus xviii, 18ff.; 
Deut. i, 4, with Num. xxi, 24-35 ; Deut. i, 6, with 
Num. x, llff.; Deut. i, 22, with Num. xiii, 2, 3, 
26-33 ; Deut. i, 33, with Exodus xiii, 21, 22 ; Deut. 
i, 34ff., with Num. xiv, 23ff. ; Deut. iv, 34, and vii, 
18, with Exodus vi-xi ; Deut. viii, 3, with Exodus 
xvi ; Deut. ix, 7ff., with Exodus xvi, xvii, 7, and 
xxxii ; Deut. ix, 22ff., with Exodus xviiff., and 
Num. xi. 

These passages in Deuteronomy refer back to 
the great things which God did for his people in 
Egypt, and to the chief events during the forty 
years' journeying in the wilderness, mentioned in 
the passages cited from Numbers and Exodus. 

Deuteronomy also repeats the most important 
individual laws, on obedience to which depended 

the prosperity of the Israelites in the land of 

15 



226 THE PENTATEUCH. 

promise. (Compare Deut. v, 6-21, with Exodus 
xx, 1-17 ; Deut. xiv, with Lev. xi ; Deut. xvi, 
with Exodus xii, Iff.; xxxiii, 17; xxxiv, 23; Lev. 
xxiii, 4ff., etc.) 

References to the book of Genesis frequently 
occur. (Compare Deut. vi , 3, with Gen. xii, 2 ; xv, 
5 ; Deut. i, 8 ; vi, 10, 23 ; vii, 8 ; ix, 5, with Gen. 
xii, 7 ; xiii, 15 ; xvii, 8 ; xxvi, 3 ; xxviii, 13, and 
xxxv, 12. Deut. i, 10; x, 22, with Gen. xv, 5. 
Deut. xxix, 23, with Gen. xix, 24, 25. Deut. ii, 9, 
19, with Gen. xix, 37, 38. Deut. i, 10, 11, with 
Gen. xxii, 17. Deut. x, 22, with Gen xlvi, 27.) 

An examination of those passages cited from 

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers will 

render it evident that they are prior 

Date of Deu- . , A . 

teronomy m date to the parallel passages in 

later than r I & 

that of the Deuteronomy ; for the latter are rep- 

prececung J 7 r 

Pentateuch 6 resented, in many instances, as a ful- 
fillment of the former. The date of 
Deuteronomy is, therefore, later than that of the 
preceding books of the Pentateuch. 

The existence of Deuteronomy has been traced 
back from the time of Josiah to that of Joshua, 
the contemporary of Moses during the sojourning 
of the Israelites in the wilderness. It has been 
shown, too, that it implies the prior date of the 
former books of the Pentateuch, by its frequent 
references to them; and that its authorship was 



■ 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 227 

universally ascribed to Moses. The question, 
then, whether its composition was earlier or later 
than the preceding books of the Pentateuch may- 
be considered as virtually settled. 

But the question can not be left here. Is 
there any evidence that the Pentateuch, as a 
whole, is referred to in the subsequent books of 
the Old Testament as a well-known work extant 
from the time of Moses down to the latest period 
of Hebrew sacred literature ? This question will 
now occupy our attention. 

Let us premise a few considerations. If the 
Pentateuch was not composed in the time of 
Moses, it is very difficult, yea, impossible, to fix 
on any subsequent period as the date of its com- 
position. 

It would be difficult to fix it in the time of 
Joshua. He experienced the vicissitudes of the 
Israelites in the wilderness. He had much of the 
experience of Moses and the benefit of that 
learned man's instructions; but his life, after 
entering Canaan, was eminently active, so that 
he had little time for literary labor. Moreover, 
he frequently refers to the authority of Moses as 
the reason of his own actions, and professes to 
carry out his instructions. 

No one would fix on the time of the Judges, 
a time of great national conflicts and national 



228 THE PENTATEUCH. 

confusion, when " every man did that which was 
right in his own eyes." (Judges xxi, 25.) 

The time of Samuel was altogether unsuitable, 
for Samuel did not come into contact with Egypt 
and the wilderness at all; but the laws and nar- 
ratives of the Pentateuch evince an intimate 
knowledge of both. 

David, on his accession to the throne, found 
Difficulties of the kin g ] y form of government estab- 
dJtelfthe lished, the greater part of the Israel- 
laterthanthe itish nation adhering to the house of 
' Saul, the tabernacle and the ark in 
existence, a priesthood tracing its lineage back to 
a period before him, and a priest wearing the 
ephod, — all which are inconsistent with the con- 
dition of things described in the Pentateuch. 

The time of Solomon is equally unsuitable. 
His temple was modeled after the tabernacle, 
which proves the previous existence of the lat- 
ter. (Smith's " Dictionary of the Bible." Article 
Temple, Vol. Ill, p. 1455a.) The whole organi- 
zation proceeds on the basis of the Pentateuch. 
(1 Kings viii, 1-11.) Solomon who " loved many 
strange women " belonging to the neighboring 
nations, reached the maximum of polygamy ; and 
" his wives turned away his heart after other gods." 
(1 Kings xi, 1-14.) His history, therefore, fur- 
nishes the clearest proof that he was not the 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 229 

author of the laws commonly acknowledged as 
the laws of Moses. 

It is in vain to attempt to find a date for the 
Pentateuch between the time of Solomon and 
the captivity ; for the kingdom was divided, 
idolatry introduced into the northern kingdom; 
and many of the kings of Judah followed the 
example of the kings of Israel. 

The post-exilic date of the middle books rests 
on the theory that there was no " graduated hier- 
archy of priests and Levites " until the time of 
Ezra. That theory has been already considered. 

There is a single fact (already alluded to in a 
different connection, p. 191), recorded by Ezra, 
which of itself is sufficient to show the utter 
groundlessness of this theory. We read in Ezra 
iii, 12 : " But many of the priests and Levites 
and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, 
that had seen the first house, when the founda- 
tion of this house was laid before their eyes, 
wept with a loud voice." 

This statement proves the existence of a for- 
mer house or temple, which we know from the 
history of the captivity, to have been Solomon's. 
The temple of Solomon was erected to supersede 
the tabernacle, and modeled after it. The taber- 
nacle was set up in the wilderness according to 
the designs given in Exodus. In connection 



230 THE PENTATEUCH. 

with these designs, the holy garments, and the 
service, and the consecration of the priests are 
described. The post-exilic temple, priesthood, 
and ritual were a restoration of what had existed 
before. This fact involves the existence of the 
middle books of the Pentateuch at or about the 
time of the erection of the tabernacle in the wil- 
derness. 

These considerations are general. We will 
now advert to particulars. 

Prof. Stanley Leathes, M. A., having clearly 
proved the unity and organic structure of the 
Old Testament, thus concludes: "Thus every 
portion of this ancient literature [historic, pro- 
phetic, poetic, and legal] is intimately bound up 
with every other; the prophecy with the poe- 
try, and the poetry with the history, and all 
together with the law, and the law of Moses is 
not only an integral element in the composition 
of the Old Testament, but is also the corner- 
stone of its internal structure, and the firm, 
essential basis of its organic and indestruc- 
tible unity." (" The Structure of the Old Testa- 
ment," p. 196: London: Hodder & Stoughton ; 
1873.) 

The following references to the Pentateuch, in 
the subsequent books of the Old Testament, will 
confirm the statements of Prof. Leathes, and, at 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 231 

the same time, prove its prior existence to these 
books. 

References to the Pentateuch in the booh of 
Joshua. 

(a) Compare Josh, i, 7, 8, with Deut. 

-r * ••-■<»■« rn- References to 

v, 32, and xxviii, 14 ; Josh, vm, 31-35, the Pent*- 

' ' J 7 7 teuch in the 

with Exodus xx, 24, 25, and Deut. ^g^^ 
xxvii, 5, 6; xxxi, 9, 12, 25; Josh, xxiii, £**"**- 
6, with Deut. v, 32, and xxviii, 14. In 
Josh, i, 3-8, the words of Deuteronomy xi, 24, 25, 
and xxxi, 6-12, are quoted; and in Josh, i, 
13-18, the words of Deut. iii, 18-20. 

(6) The ecclesiastical constitution, so far as it 
is mentioned by Joshua, corresponds to that de- 
scribed in the Pentateuch. 

The priesthood is in the family of Aaron. 
(Josh, xiv, 1 ; xxi, 1, compared with Exodus 
xxviii, 1, and Num. xxxiv, 17.) 

The tribe of Levi, being scattered among the 
tribes, with cities assigned to them, perform the 
sacred functions. (Josh, xiii, 14, 33; xiv, 3, 4; 
xviii, 7 ; xxi, compared with Numbers xviii, 
20-24, and xxxv, 7.) 

The tabernacle erected in the wilderness is 
now set up in Shiloh. (Josh, xviii, i, compared 
with Exodus xl.) 

The sacrifices are those enjoined in Leviticus. 



232 THE PENT A TE UCH. 

(Josh, viii, 31 ; xxii, 23, 27, 29, compared with 
Lev. i, ii, iii.) 

The altar which Joshua built was constructed 
" as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded 
the children of Israel, as it is written in the book 
of the law of Moses." (Josh, viii, 30, 31, com- 
pared with Exodus xx, 25.) 

The ark was carried on the shoulders of the 
Levites. (Josh, iii, 3, 6, 8 ; vi, 6, 7, 8, 9, com- 
pared with Num. iv.) 

Joshua was commanded to circumcise the chil- 
dren of Israel. (Josh, v, 2-7, compared with 
Gen. xvii, 9-14, 23-27.) 

The passover was observed. (Josh, v, 10, 
compared with Exodus xii, 2-17.) 

(e) The civil constitution corresponds to that 
described in the Pentateuch : 

Joshua mentions the general assembly of the 
people and of the rulers. (Josh, ix, 18-21 ; xx, 
6, 9 ; xxxii, 30, compared with Exodus xvi, 22.) 

Elders. (Josh, vii, 6, compared with Deut. 
xxxi, 9.) 

Elders of the city. (Josh, xx, 4, compared 
with Deut. xxv, 8.) 

Of&cers called Shoterim and Shophetim. (Josh, 
viii, 33, compared with Deut. xvi, 18.) 

Heads of thousands, (Josh, xxii, 21, com- 
pared with Num. i, 16.) 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 233 

(d) Ordinances of the Mosaic law adhered to : 

The bodies of those that were hanged were 
taken down from the tree at the setting of the 
sun. (Josh, viii, 29 ; x, 27, compared with Deut. 
xxi, 23.) 

No league made with the Canaanites. (Josh, 
ix, compared with Exodus xxiii, 32.) 

Cities of refuge. (Josh, xx, compared with 
Num. xxxv, 11-15; Deut. iv, 41-43; xix, 2-7.) 

The land divided by lot by Joshua. (Josh, 
xiv, 2, compared with Num. xxxiv, 13.) 

The daughters of Zelophehad obtained an in- 
heritance among the brethren of their father. 
(Josh, xvii, 3, 4, compared with Num. xxvii, 
1-12, and xxxvi, 6-9.) 

2. In the Book of Judges. 

This book joins on to the book of Joshua, and 
appears to be a continuation of the history of 
Israel from the death of that great leader and 
conqueror. 

(a) It clearly refers to the laws of Moses and 
God's commandments by him. (Judges ii, 1, 
compared with Gen. xvii, 7, 8 ; Exodus xx, 2 ; 
verse 2, with Deut. vii, 2 ; xii, 3 ; verse 3, with 
Exodus xxiii, 33 ; Deut. vii, 16 ; verses 11, 12, 
13, with Deut. xxxi, 16.) 

(b) Judah's pre-eminence. (Judges xi, 2 ; x, 
18, compared with Gen. xlix, 8 ; Num. xii, 3 ; , 14.) 



234 THE PENTATEUCH. 

(c) The office of Judge, throughout the book, 
compared with Deut. xvii, 9. 

(d) The theocratic character of the nation. 
(Judges viii, 22, 23, compared with Exodus xix, 
6, and Deut. xxxiii, 5.) 

(e) Asking counsel of the Lord. (Judges xx, 
23, compared with Num. xxvii, 21.) 

(/) Going to the house of the Lord to offer 
burnt-offerings and sacrifices. (Judges xx, 20, 
compared with Deut. xii, 5, 6.) 

(g) The ephod a priestly garment. (Judges 
viii, 27 ; xvii, 5 ; xviii, 14-17, compared with 
Exodus xxxix, 22.) 

(h) The Levites dispersed among the tribes. 
(Judges xvii, 7-13 ; xix, 1, 2, compared with 
Gen. xlix, 7, and Num. xxxv, 2-8.) 

(i) Circumcision distinguishes the Israelites. 
(Judges xiv, 3 ; xv, 18, compared with Gen. 
xvii, 9-14.) 

(Jc) Historical references in Judges to facts re- 
corded in the Pentateuch. (Judges i, 16, 20, 
compared with Num. xiv, 24, and Deut. i, 36 ; 
Judges ii, 1, compared with Exodus xx, 2; 
Judges vi, 13, compared with Exodus xx, 2 ; 
Judges xi, 15-27, is an epitome of Num. xx, xxi. 

(I) Language in Judges frequently borrowed 
from that of the Pentateuch. (Judges ii, 1-23, 
compared with Exodus xx, 5; xxxiv, 15; Lev. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 235 

xxvi, 13-17, 36; Num. xxxii, 13; Deut. vii, 2,5, 
16; ix, 18; xii, 3; xvii, 2; xxxi, 16; Judges 
v, 4, 5, with Deut. xxxiii, 2 ; verse 8, with Deut. 
xxxii, 17.) 

3. In Samuel. 

(a) Eli, of the family of Aaron, high-priest. 
(1 Sam. chapters i-iv, compared with Exodus xl, 
12-15, and Num. xxv, 11-13.) 

(b) The lamp burns in the tabernacle. (1 Sam. 
iii, 3, according to the ordinance, Exodus xxvii, 
20, 21 ; Lev. xxiv, 2, 3.) 

(c) The ark of the covenant is in the taber- 
nacle, and is considered the symbol of the divine 
presence. (1 Sam. iv, 3, 4, 18, 21, 22; v, 3, 4, 
7; vi, 19, compared with Exodus xl, 20, 21.) 

(c?) The cherubim are there. (1 Sam. iv, 4, 
compared with Exodus xxxvii, 9.) 

(e) The ephod is worn by the high-priest. 
(1 Sam. ii, 28, compared with Exodus xxxix, 21.) 

(/) Burning incense. (1 Sam. ii, 28, com- 
pared with Exodus xxxvii, 25.) 

(g) The various kinds of Mosaic sacrifices are 
referred to ; the animals offered in sacrifice ; and 
the especial customs of the sacrifice. (1 Sam. i, 
24, 25; ii, 13, 19; iii, 14; vii, 9; x, 8; xi, 15; 
xiii, 9 ; xv, 22 ; xvi, 2 ; xxvi, 19, compared with 
Lev., chapters i-vii ; Num. xviii, 8-19, 25-32 ; 
Deut. xviii, 1-8.) 



236 THE PENTA TE UCH. 

(h) The Levites alone were permitted to han- 
dle the ark. (1 Sam. vi, 15, compared with Num. 
i, 49-53.) 

(i) Historical events related in the Pentateuch 
referred to. (1 Sam. iv, 8 ; viii, 8 ; xii, 8, com- 
pared with Exodus, chapters iii-xv.) 

(k) Verbal quotations from the Pentateuch. 
(1 Sam. ii, 22, compared with Exodus xxxviii, 8 ; 
1 Sam. viii, 5, 6, with Deut. xvii, 14 ; 1 Sam. 
viii, 3, with Deut. xvi, 19.) 
4. In the Poetical Boohs. 

(a) Compare Ps. i, 3, with Gen. xxxix, 3, 23. 
Ps. iv, 5 (Heb. 6), with Deut. xxxiii, 19. 
Ps. iv, 6 (Heb. 7), with Number vi, 26. 
Ps. viii, 6, 7, 8, with Gen. i, 26, 28. 
Ps. ix, 12 (Heb. 13), with Gen. ix, 5. 
Ps. xv, 5, with Exodus xxii, 25 (Heb. 24), 
Ex. xxiii, 8 ; Lev. xxv, 36 ; Deut. xvi, 19. 
Ps. xvi, 4, with Ex. xxx, 19, 20. 
Ps. xxx, (Heading), with Deut. xx, 5. 
Ps. xxxix, 12, with Lev. xxv, 23. 
Ps. lxviii, 1, with Num. x, 35. 
Ps. lxviii, 4, with Deut. xxxiii, 26. 
Ps. lxviii, 7, with Ex. xiii, 21. 
Ps. lxviii, 8, with Ex. xix, 6ff. 
Ps. lxviii, 17, with Deut. xxxiii, 2. 
Ps. lxxxvi, 8, with Ex. xv, 11. 
Ps. lxxxvi, 15, with Ex. xxxiv, 6. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 237 

Compare Ps. ciii, 17, 18, with Ex. xx, 6 ; 

Deut. vii, 9. 
Ps. ex, 4, with Gen. xiv, 18. 
Ps. exxxiii, 2, with Ex. xxx, 25, 30. 
(b) Compare Prov. iii, 9, with Ex. xxxii, 29 ; 

and Deut. xxvi, 2. 

Prov. iii, 12, with Deut. viii, 5. 

Prov. iii, 18, with Gen. ii, 9. 

Prov. xi, 1, with Lev. xix, 36. 

Prov. xx, 10, 23, with Deut. xxv, 13, 14. 

Prov. xi, 13,1 .,i T ' -io 

' > V with Lev. xix, 16. 

Prov. xx, 19, ) 
5. There are frequent allusions to the Pentateuch 
from the establishment of the northern kingdom until 
the captivity. 

(a) In the reign of Jehoshaphat, " the Book 
of the Law of the Lord " is mentioned. (2 Chron. 
xvii, 9. 

(b) In the reign of Uzziah. (Compare 2 
Chron. xxvi, 16-21, with Num. xvi, Iff.) 

(c) In the reign of Hezekiah. (Compare 2 
Kings xviii, 4, with Num. xxi, 9 ; and verse 6, 
with Deut. x, 20.) 

(d) Compare 1 Kings xxi, 3, with Lev. xxv, 

23; and Num. xxxvi, 8. 
1 Kings xxi, 10, with Num. xxxv, 30; 

Deut. xvii, 6, 7 ; Deut. xix, 15. 
1 Kings xxii, 17, with Num. xxvii, 16, 17. 



238 THE PENTATEUCH. 

r 

(e) Compare 2 Kings iii, 20, with Ex. xxix, 
38ff. 
2 Kings xiv, 1, with Lev. xxv, 39ff. 
2 Kings vi, 18, with Gen. xix, 11. 
2 Kings vii, 3, with Lev. xiii, 46 ; Num. 
v, 3. 
(/) Compare Hos. vi, 7 (Heb., they have 
transgressed like Adam), with Gen. iii. 
Hos. xi, 1, with Ex, iv, 22, 23. 
Hos. xii, 3, 4, with Gen. xxv, 26 ; xxxii, 24. 
There is an allusion to the deliverance from 
Egypt in Hosea ii, 15, and a reference to the 
law in viii, 12. In the last passage our version 
does not give the exact meaning of the original. 
Instead of " the great things of the law," the 
Hebrew is susceptible of two readings; one of 
which, the oral reading in the synagogues, is lit- 
erally, " the multitudes of my law ;" the other, 
the written text, " the myriads of my law." This 
reading evidently refers to something more than 
a single book. 

(g) Compare Joel ii, 3, with Gen. ii, 8. 

Joel ii, 1, 15, 16, with Num. x, 2-10. 
(h) Compare Amos ii, 10, with Gen. xv, 16. 
Amos ii, 11, 12, with Num. vi, 1-21. 
Amos iii, 1, with Ex. xii. 
Amos iii, 14, with Ex. xxvii, 2 ; xxx, 10 ; 
xxxviii, 2. 



EXPOSITIONS AND THEORIES. 239 

Compare Amos iv, 4, 5, with Num. xxviii, 
3, 4; Deut. xiv, 28; xxvi, 12 ; Lev. vii, 
12, 13*; xxii, 18-21; Deut. xii, 6. 
(i) Compare Obadiah, verse 10, with Gen. 

xxvii, 41. 
(k) Compare Micah vii, 17, with Gen. iii, 14. 
Chapter vi, 4, 5, refers to the history of 
the Exodus, and to Num. xxii, 5 ; xxiii, 7 ; xxiv, 
10, 11. 

(/) In the reign of Josiah there is abundant 
evidence that the ordinances observed, when the 
temple had been purified, were those of the Mo- 
saic law. 

(1) The passover was kept as it was written 
in the book of the covenant. (2 Kings xxiii ; 
2 Chron. xxxv, 6.) 

(2) The fourteenth day of the first month 
was the day appointed. (2 Chron. xxxv, 1, com- 
pared with Exodus xii, 6.) 

(3) The sacrifices were Mosaic. (2 Chron. 
xxxv, 7-10, compared with Num. xxviii, 16-31.) 

(4) The priests, assisted by the Levites, killed 
the passover and sprinkled the blood. (2 Chron. 
xxxv, 11, compared with Lev. i, 5-9.) 

(5) The priests were the sons of Aaron. (2 
Chron. xxxv, 14, compared with Num. iii, 1-4, 
and xviii, Iff.) 

The prophets of the captivity and the post- 



240 THE PENTATEUCH. 

exilic prophets refer to the Pentateuch and ac- 
knowledge the law as much as those who have 
been already cited. Malachi closes the canon of 
the Old Testament prophecy with these words : 
" Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, 
which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all 
Israel, with the statutes and judgments " (iv, 4). 
But as the object has been, in the preceding ta- 
bles, to point out the references to the law of 
Moses in the history and literature of the Israel- 
itish people before the exile, it is not necessary 
to go beyond that period. The numerous refer- 
ences, that have been given, are not by any means 
exhaustive; but they are sufficient to prove that 
the Pentateuch is the oldest portion of the Old 
Testament Canon. 



Part II. 



Proofs of the JVEosaie Authorship 



PENTATEUCH, 



Part II. 

PROOFS OF THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF 
THE PENTATEUCH. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTERNAL PROOFS— INDIRECT AND DIRECT. 

Section I. 

INDIRECT PROOFS. 

The argument in favor of the Mosaic author- 
ship of the Pentateuch has hitherto been merely 
negative : the positive side will now be presented. 

The positive evidence that Moses wrote the 
Pentateuch is not inconsistent with the admission 
that he may have used documents or 
traditions of patriarchal times, and authorehipof 
incorporated them into his historv. teuehcon- 

J si stent with 

He may have employed, as the Apos- t^l^L. 
tie Paul did, an amanuensis, to whom 
he dictated parts of it. Or, others, in the time 
of Moses, may have written portions of it, and 
he may have stamped them with his own author- 
ity. This supposition may explain the use of the 



244 THE PENT A TEUCH. 

third person, when Moses is spoken of, and those 
passages which speak of him in a way inconsist- 
ent, in the opinion of some, with true modesty. 
It does explain them very satisfactorily, though 
it is not necessary to have recourse to such a 
supposition for their explanation. 

The Mosaic authorship is, moreover, consist- 
ent with the admission that the Pentateuch may 
have undergone a revision or recension in later 
times. Ezra, Nehemiah, and their as- 

Notinconsist- , ,.,... 

entwith sistants, may have subjected it, with 

revision. 7 J J } 

other books of the Old Testament 
Canon, to a careful revision. This seems to 
have been the opinion of the Jews and of some 
of the Fathers of the Christian Church. 

That there was such a man as Moses is not 

denied by skeptics ; nor is it denied that he was 

the leader of his people out of Egypt 

There was . Tx . r r i , 

such a man 1D to Canaan. His name and charac- 

as Moses. 

ter were known to the heathen world. 
Strabo (B. C. 30-A. D. 30 ; xvi, 2) mentions him 
and the exodus under his guidance. So does Di- 
odorus Siculus (Bible Hist. I, 94). Josephus 
(c. Apion, I, 34) quotes from Lysimachus (about 
400 B. C.) an account of the exodus, and of the 
part which Moses took in it. He also quotes 
from Chseremon (a philosopher and historian of 
Alexandria, B. C. 30) a passage, in which that 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 245 

heathen writer mentions Moses (c. Apion, I, 32). 
Pliny the elder (A. D. 70) says (xxx, 1) : " There 
is also another magical sect, still in these days 
kept up by the Jews, Moses, and Lotopeas ;" and 
Tacitus (A. D. 110) also speaks of him (Hist. 
V, 3). ("Heathen Records to the Jewish Scrip- 
ture History;" London: James Cornish; 1856.) 
Longinus, quoting Gen. i, 3, as an example of 
the sublime, calls him the Jewish law-giver, and 
a man of no common ability. (" De Sublimitate," 
Z. Pearce ; Novi-Eborac, 1812.) 

It is not necessary to ask now, as in a former 
age, " Was the art of writing known so early as 
the time of Moses? and especially was 

, , , * The art of 

it known to the Jews and the Egyp- writing 

GJ r known be- 

tians?" These questions have been fore the time 

1 of Moses. 

answered in the affirmative by recent 
discoveries. Ewald, in his " History of the Peo- 
ple of Israel" (Vol. I, pp. 50, 51, Note, Martin- 
eau's Translation), observes that the words for 
" write," "book," and "ink" belong to all the 
branches and dialects of the Semitic family of 
languages. From this he infers that writing with 
ink in a book must have been known to the 
Semitic people before they were separated into 
tribes, nations, and families. He concludes that, 
"whatever the Semitic people may be, to which 
the civilized world owes this invaluable inven- 



246 THE PENTATEUCH. 

tion, so much is incontrovertible, that it appears 
in history as a possession of Semitic nations long 
before Moses ; and we need not scruple to assume 
that Israel knew and used it in Egypt before 
Moses." 

That the Semitic nations had a knowledge of 
the art of writing from the earliest times is cor- 
roborated by Grecian traditions. According to 
these, Cadmus (i. e., "the Eastern"), the brother 
of Europa, introduced letters from Phoenicia into 
Greece. These traditions belong to the mythic 
ages of Greece ; but they are confirmed by the 
fact that the letters of the Greek alphabet have 
the same names and order with those of the Se- 
mitic alphabets ; and the names of the letters are 
significant in Semitic, but not in Greek, which 
proves that the Greeks received them from a 
Semitic people, and not the Semites from the 
Greeks. Herodotus (V, 58) says that the Greeks 
received their alphabet from the Phoenicians, and 
that the latter used for the purpose of writing 
goat and sheep-skins. Though the Phoenician 
language is a member of the Semitic family, yet 
the Phoenicians were of the same race as the Ca- 
naanites ; and in an Egyptian monument a Hittite 
(the Hittites were Canaanites) is specially named 
as a writer. " Pentaour, a royal scribe of the 
reign of Rameses the Great (before, as some 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 247 

think, but more probably, soon after the exodus), 
composed a poem which is described as a kind of 
Egyptian Iliad, and which was engraved on the 
walls of the temple of Karnac. This mentions 
by name Chirapsar, among the Kheta (i. e., the 
Hittites) as a writer of books (Brugsch, p. 139) ; 
with which has been compared the fact that 
Joshua took a city of the Hittites, the ancient 
name of which was Kirjath-sepher, i. e., " the 
city of the book" (Josh, xv, 15), and he changed 
the name to Debir, a word of similar signifi- 
cance." (The Bible Commentary. " Introduc- 
tion to the Pentateuch," p. 3.) 

Writing existed in Egypt at a very early pe- 
riod. Hieroglyphics are coeval with the earliest 
Egyptian monuments; and the cursive hieratic 
character is found in monuments, parchments, 
and papyri, whose date is prior to the time of 
Moses. In the tomb of Chnoumhotep, at Beni 
Hassan, there are groups of figures, belonging to 
the twelfth dynasty, which represent a scribe pre- 
senting to the governor a roll of papyrus cov- 
ered with an inscription, bearing the date of the 
sixth year of Osirtasen II. This was many cen- 
turies before the exodus, even, according to most 
scholars^ before the time of Abraham. There is 
also a papyrus in the cursive hieratic character, 
which belongs to the reign of Menephthah I, of 



248 THE PENT A TE TJCH. 

the nineteenth dynasty, whom many have identi- 
fied with the Pharaoh of the exodus. This pa- 
pyrus gives a list of nine authors distinguished for 
their writings in theology, philosophy, history, 
and poetry. Another papyrus, written in the 
hieratic character, found by M. Prisse, translated 
by M. Chabas, and containing two treatises, is 
attributed to a prince of the fifth dynasty. This 
is considered to be the most ancient of existing 
manuscripts — much older than that bearing the 
date of the sixth year of Osirtasen II. These 
papyri prove that the art of writing existed in 
Egypt long before the time of Moses, who, being 
brought up in the house of Pharaoh and " learned 
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians " (Acts vii, 
22), acquired, doubtless, eminent skill in that art. 
There is a strong antecedent probability that 
Moses, being a learned man and " mighty in 
words and deed " (Acts vii, 22), the 
probability leader of the children of Israel in 

that Moses , 

wrote the their march from Egypt to Canaan, 

Pentateuch. # _ ° J r ' 

and their law-giver, would write a his- 
tory of his people and of his own legislation. 
This probability is confirmed by the most satis- 
factory evidence. 

1. The author of the Pentateuch had evi- 
dently an intimate acquaintance with Egypt, its 
literature, its laws, and its religion. 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 249 

This has been denied ; and it has been asserted 
that on these points he was guilty of " mistakes 
and inaccuracies." Von Bohlen thinks 
that he transferred many things from f the Penta- 
Upper Asia to the valley of the Nile, acquainted 

-r-r i i „ -l^ • With the Ut - 

He says that the " Egyptians were ac- erature, 

J . . laws, and 

customed to build with hewn stone, religion of 

' Egypt. 

and the great buildings of brick (Ex. 
i, 14), instead of being Egyptian, seem rather to 
have been borrowed from Babylonia." But his- 
tory and Egyptian monuments prove the abund- 
ant use of brick in Egypt. 1 

It has been denied that asses and sheep were 
found in Egypt, though they are mentioned by 
the author of the Pentateuch in Gen. xii, 16 ; 
xlv, 23; xlvii, 17; and Exodus ix, 3, as belong- 
ing to that country. But the denial is refuted 
by history and existing monuments. 2 In the 
same way the denial by Yon Bohlen of the use 
of animal food among the Egyptians (Gen. xliii, 
16) is proved to be groundless; his ignorance of 
the natural phenomena and productions of the 
country is exposed ; and the accuracy of the wri- 
ter of the Pentateuch is fully vindicated. 3 

The history of Joseph is consistent with Egyp- 
tian customs and with the condition of Egypt at 



1 Hengstenberg's " Egypt and the Books of Moses," p. 2. Edinburgh : 
Thomas Clark, 1845. a Ib., pp. 3-7. a Ib., pp. 8-20. 



250 THE PENTA TE UCH. 

that time. He was sold by his brothers to an 
Arabian caravan that was going to Egypt (Gen. 
xxxvii, 28) ; and sold again by the Midianites to 
Potiphar, captain of Pharaoh's guard (v. 36). 
Now proof that trade with Egypt by caravans 
was established at a very early age is furnished 
by the fact that a king of the sixteenth dynasty 
erected a station in the Wady Jasoos for the con- 
venience of travelers through the desert. Slaves, 
too, were procured by the Egyptians, not only in 
war, but also by purchase. 4 

Joseph's master is called a eunuch (Heb. saris, 
the root of which means to root out, to extirpate, 
to castrate), though he was not a eunuch in the 
literal sense. The term in Gen. xxxvii, 36, is 
equivalent to court-officer. But the transferred 
signification rests upon the employments, in 
which real eunuchs were engaged; and hence this 
designation of Potiphar implies that there were 
eunuchs in Egypt. Though it has been asserted 
that this can not be proved, yet the monuments 
furnish evidence of the fact that they were not 
unknown to that country. 5 

Joseph's appointment to be overseer of Poti- 
phar's house (Gen. xxxix, 4, 5), was in conform- 
ity with Egyptian custom. 6 His temptation 
(Gen. xxxix, 7) was in keeping with the great 

« Hengstenberg, p. 22. 6 lb. p. 23 6 lb. p. 24. 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 251 

corruption of manners with reference to the mar- 
riage relation. 7 

The preparation of many kinds of pastry for 
the table, and the practice of carrying burdens 
on the head, were common among the Egyp- 
tians. Herodotus mentions the latter as a habit 
which distinguished the Egyptians from all other 
people. 8 

In Pharaoh's dream (Gen. xli, 1, 2), the writer 
uses two Egyptian words, — one rendered in our 
version " river," and the other " meadow." In 
the same dream the cow appears as a symbol 
(vs. 2, 3, 4), which is peculiarly Egyptian. 9 The 
calling for the magicians and the wise men (xli, 
8; Ex. vii, 11 ; viii, 7, 18, 19) is in keeping with 
the fact that in ancient Egypt there was an order 
of persons to whom application was made for the 
explanation of things which lay beyond the circle 
of common knowledge and action. 10 

Shaving the head and beard (Gen. xli, 14) ; 
dress and ornaments (v. 42) ; the marriage of 
Joseph (v. 45) to the daughter of the priest of 
On, are illustrated by Egyptian history and mon- 
uments. 11 

The famine in Egypt (Gen. xli, 54, 55) has 
appeared suspicious to some, who have charged 



t Hengstenberg, p. 25. 8 lb. , p. 27. • lb. , p. 28. ,0 lb. , pp., 28, 29, 
11 lb., pp. 30,32. 



252 THE PENTATEUCH. 

the author with ignorance of the natural condition 
of that country. But there is scarcely a land on 
the earth in which famine has raged so often and so 
terribly as in that country. Its fruitfulness, it is 
true, depends upon the inundations of the Nile, 
but these are occasioned by the rains that fall 
upon the Abyssinian mountains. If, therefore, 
these rains should fail, the inundations of the 
Nile would also fail. 12 

The arrangements at the entertainment of Jo- 
seph's brethren (Gen. xliii, 32) ; 13 the practice of 
divining by cups (Gen. xliv, 5) ; u the settlement 
of Jacob and his family in Goshen (Gen. xlvi, 
34) ; 15 the location of Pharaoh's treasure-houses ; 16 
and the march of the Israelites from Raamses to 
the Red Sea 17 are in harmony with Egyptian cus- 
toms, and in agreement with the geographical 
position of Israel in Egypt. 

It is stated (Gen. xlvii, 20) that " Joseph 
bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh," with 
the exception of the land of the priests (v. 22) ; 
and this statement is confirmed by profane his- 
torians. 18 

The custom of embalming (Gen. 1, 23, 26) was 
very ancient in Egypt ; and also of mourning for 
the dead seventy days (v. 3). 19 

"Hengstenberg, p. 37. ls Ib., p. 38. »Ib., p. 39. « lb., p. 40. 
«°Ib., p. 47. 'lb., p. 55. 8 Ib.,p. 60. 9 Ib.,p. 66. 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 253 

The fears of Pharaoh and the measures that 
he adopted for the oppression of the Israelites 
(Ex. i, 8-16) were entirely in accordance with the 
spirit of the kings of Egypt. 20 

The use of papyrus and bitumen (Ex. ii, 3) 
was very common in Egypt ; 21 and the fact that 
the king's daughter went to the Nile to bathe is 
explained by the Egyptian notion of the sacred- 
ness of that river. 22 

Borrowing ornaments from the Egyptians 
(Ex. iii, 22) implies that such ornaments were in 
common use among the Egyptians, which has 
been fully confirmed by recent discoveries. 23 

Carrying a rod (Ex. iv, 2) was an Egyptian 
custom (vii, 12); and the name (" shoterim ") of 
" the officers of the children of Israel " (v. 14) is 
explained by the representation of subordinate 
officers on Egyptian monuments. 24 

The preparation of stones for inscriptions 
(Deut. xxvii, 2, 3) is verified in the same way. 25 

The arrogance of Pharaoh (Ex. v, 2) exhibits 
the genuine spirit of the kings of Egypt gener- 
ally, who, in their pride, styled themselves kings 
of the world, and claimed, some think, divine 
honors for themselves. 26 

The signs and wonders mentioned in Exodus, 



20 Hengstenberg, p. 78. 21 Ib., p. 85. ^Ib., pp., 85, 86. M Ib., p. 86. 
"lb., pp. 87,88, 92. asib., p. 90. 26 lb., p. 92. 



254 THE PENTA TE UCH. 

chapters vii-xi, find a foundation in the natural 
phenomena of Egypt, and stand in close connec- 
tion with ordinary occurrences, which show how 
accurate the author's knowledge of Egypt was. 27 

The statements concerning the military force 
of the Egyptians (Ex., chapters xiv, xv) are fully 
corroborated by the history and the monuments ; 
and so, also, are the instruments of music and 
singing and dancing. " Women beat^ the tam- 
bourine and darabooka drum, without the addi- 
tion of any other instrument, dancing or singiug 
to the sound." 28 

The materials and arts employed in the con- 
struction of the tabernacle, and in making the 
priests' garments — such as cutting and carving 
precious stones, the art of purifying and working 
metals, carving wood, the use of leather, spin- 
ning, weaving, and embroidery, the Urim and 
Thummim 29 — were used and employed among 
the Egyptians. 

These things show that the Israelites did not 
continue their nomadic life in Egypt ; but availed 
themselves of the advantages of Egyptian culture 
and civilization. 30 

» Hengstenberg, pp. 95-125. 28 lb., pp. 126-132. » lb., p. 149. 

According to JElian, the high-priest among the Egyptians, as supe- 
rior judge, wore around his neck an image of Sapphire, which was 
called truth. Diodorus says, "The chief judge wore around his neck 
an image of costly stones, suspended upon a gold chain, which was 
named truth." 

«>Ib., pp. 133ff. 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 255 

There are many things in the religious insti- 
tutions and legislation of the Pentateuch that 
direct us, in a general way, to Egypt. A code 
of laws so complex would not probably have 
been given to a people, who had not, from for- 
mer circumstances, been accustomed to a law reg- 
ulating the whole life. 31 

These references to Egyptian customs, arts, 
and laws, prove that the author of the Penta- 
teuch was intimately acquainted with them, and 
thus favor the generally received opinion that it 
was written by Moses. 

2. The Pentateuch was evidently written by 
some one who was acquainted with, ThePenta . 
and had a share in, the exodus, and ^Sttenby 
who had an intimate knowledge of the wSac- newh ° 
wanderings of the Israelites in the mtXTand 

. , , had a share 

Wilderness. in.theex- 

• odus. 

A mere perusal of the narrative of 
the exodus can not fail to impress the reader 
with the conviction that it came from the pen of 
one who had a personal acquaintance with that 
great event which gave birth to the Israelitish 
nation. The whole narrative is so fresh and dra- 
matic that it could scarcely proceed from any 
other than an eye-witness. 

31 Hengstenberg, pp. 144ff. 

See Dr. Georg Ebers's " Aegypten und Die Bucher Moses." Erster 
Band, SS. 330-360. Leipzig. 1868. 



256 THE PENTATEUCH. 

To the Christian, the Jew, and the Moslem 
alike, the Wilderness is holy ground. They all 
invest it with moral grandeur, and view it with 
reverential homage. To identify its various lo- 
calities, travelers have exposed themselves to 
danger and fatigue. That a barren waste should 
awaken so much interest is inexplicable apart 
from the fact that it was the scene of the wan- 
derings of the children of Israel. 

The Pentateuch bears marks of these wander- 
ings. The tabernacle was a token of them. " It 
is proved to have been derived from the early 
times of the wanderings. It was only the most 
sacred of the many tents of a migratory people, 
resembling the general's tent in the midst of a 
camp; and according to the minute description 
of it, all the objects belonging to it were adapted 
for carrying like those of an ordinary tent." 

The Israelites preserved the memory of their 
mode of life in the wilderness in the Feast of 
Tabernacles, which commemorated their passage 
through it (Lev. xxiii, 34-36, 39-43), and which 
was observed from the time of Moses to that of 
Christ. Their language bore witness to the same 
thing. They used the words " camps " and " tents " 
long after they had ceased to be literally appli- 
cable. " The tents of the Lord " (2 Chron. xxxi, 
2) were in the precincts of the temple. " Every 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 257 

man to his tents, O Israel" (2 Sam. xx, 1), was 
the cry of sedition. Psalm lxxx, 1, 2, alludes to 
the march through the wilderness, where the ark 
of God went forth with them, and the pillar of 
fire shone above them. 

The ark itself was a memorial of life in the 
wilderness. It was not made of wood common 
to Palestine, but of Shittim wood, or acacia (Ex. 
xxv, 10), which was common in the peninsula of 
Sinai. The goats' hair and rams' skins dyed red, 
after Arabian fashion, indicate a residence or a 
sojourn in Arabia. 

The distinction of the different kinds of food 
and the animals which might be eaten, exhibit 
traces of the pastoral state of the Israelites in the 
wilderness. The ox, the sheep, the goat, the 
pygarg, the wild ox, the chamois, and clean fowls 
(Deut. xiv, 4, 5, 11), which were permitted to be 
eaten, are probably, at least many of them, such 
animals as the Israelites would hunt in the des- 
ert of Arabia. It is highly probable, therefore, 
that the permission to eat them, and the prohibi- 
tion of others, which are specified, were written 
there. 

The descriptions of localities in the wilderness 
and the exact enumeration of the stations (Num. 
xxxiii) would hardly be expected from a writer, 
who lived at a period long subsequent to the time 



258 THE PENTATEUCH. 

of Moses. It is natural to suppose that they 
were written by one who was conversant with 
these localities, and who directed the movements 
of the armies of Israel. 

3. An examination of some of the laws of the 
Pentateuch furnishes indirect proof that they 
must, at least, have been written in the time of 
Moses ; and who was so likely to be their author 
as that great law-giver? These laws are such as 
relate to situations and surrounding circumstances 
which could only exist while the people were 
living in tents or in camps in the wilderness. 
(See Part I, chap, iii, Sec. 2, pp. 140fF.) 

4. The unity of the Pentateuch is strong pre- 
sumptive proof that it proceeded from a single 
author. 

It has been shown that this unity is manifest 
from the plan and execution of the work, from 
the exact chronology which runs through all the 
five books and links their parts together, and 
from the organic connection of their materials. 
(See Part I, chap, ii, Sec. 4, pp. 98ff.) 

5. General unity of style and of ideas is also 
an evidence of single authorship. This point 
has been briefly considered. (Part I, chap . ii, 
Sec. 3, pp. 93ff.) 

If these facts which have been specified point, 
some of them, to the time of Moses, and others 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 259 

to a single author, almost every reader of the 
Pentateuch would conclude that Moses either 
wrote it himself, or that it w T as compiled under 
his direction. 

Section II. 

DIRECT PROOFS THAT MOSES WROTE THE PENTATEUCH. 

The Pentateuch furnishes direct testimony 
that Moses was its author. 

1. In Exodus xvii, 14, Moses received a com- 
mand from God to write an account of the dis- 
comfiture of the Amalekites " in a book 
[Heb. the book] and rehearse it in the mandedto, 
ears of Joshua." " The book " here comfiture of 

the Amale- 

can not mean " in writing, as Kno- kites, and the 

°' journeyings 

bel proposes to render it — which would ° t f e s h etc Srael ~ 
be a tautological expression — but a 
historical record of God's dealings with his peo- 
ple. The use of the article, which is not ren- 
dered in our version, would imply that the book 
had been already begun. What this book was 
is decided neither by the passage nor by the 
context. It is distinctly stated, however, that 
Moses kept a record of the wandering of the 
Israelites in the wilderness. In Num. xxxiii, 1, 
2, it is written : " These are the journeyings of 
the children of Israel, which went forth out of 



260 THE PENT A TE TJCH. 

the land of Egypt with their armies under the 
hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses wrote 
their journeys by the commandment of the 
Lord." 

Moses, then, by divine command, wrote a his- 
tory of the journeys of the Israelites. He wrote, 
also, "all the words of the Lord" (Ex. xx, 2-17), 
and all the judgments or statutes recorded in 
chapters xxi-xxiii (Ex. xxiv, 3, 4). " And the 
Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words : 
for after the tenor of these words I made a cove- 
nant with thee and with Israel." (Ex. xxxiv, 27.) 
The book in which he wrote " the words of the 
Lord " is called " the book of the covenant." 
(Ex. xxiv, 7.) 

2. In Deut. xxxi, 9, we read : " And Moses 
wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests 
Deut xxxi o- tne sons °^ Levi, which bare the ark 
vs. 24-6. f fae covenant of the Lord, and unto 

all the elders of Israel. . . . And it came to 
pass, when Moses had made an end of writing 
the words of this law in a book, until they were 
finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, 
which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, 
saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in 
the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord 
your God, that it may be there for a witness 
against you" (vs. 24-26). 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 261 

A question may arise as to the extent of the 
law here spoken of. It certainly can not be less 
than the Deuteronomic code. (Chaps, xii-xxvi.) 

The fact that "all the words of this law" 
were to be written on plastered stones on Mount 
Ebal (Deut. xxvii, 2-4) can create no difficulty. 
This statement finds abundant illustration in the 
walls of tombs and temples in Egypt, and its 
numerous monuments written all over with hie- 
roglyphical legends. And it surely requires no 
great effort to believe it feasible to trace these 
laws in plaster as a symbolic declaration that 
they were henceforth the laws of the land. Writ- 
ten in letters five times the size of those in ordi- 
nary Hebrew Bibles, they could all be embraced 
in the space of eight feet by three. The famous 
Behistun inscription of Darius in its triple form 
is twice as long as this entire code, besides being 
carved in the solid rock, and in a position dif- 
ficult of access on the mountain side." [The 
Presbyterian Review, January, 1882. Article 
VII, p. 113.) 

From the passages adduced, it is evident that 
Moses wrote the history of the journeys of the 
Israelites and certain laws. It is not said that 
he wrote only these and no more. It is fair to 
infer that he wrote all the books— at least, that 
he was the acknowledged author of them — in 



262 THE PENTATEUCH. 

which the history of these journeys and laws are 
incorporated. 

3. The frequently recurring formula, " The 

Lord spake unto Moses," or " the Lord spake 

unto Moses and Aaron," in Leviticus 

ring phrase, and Numbers, furnishes abundant evi- 

" The Lord ' 

saiduntoMo- dence that the Levitical law was given 
to Moses. It is, therefore, a legiti- 
mate conclusion that he was the author of the 
three codes — the Covenant, the Levitical, and the 
Deuteronomic. 

The internal evidence, both indirect and di- 
rect, has been briefly exhibited. It has been 
shown, (1) that there is a strong antecedent prob- 
ability that Moses wrote the Pentateuch ; (2) the 
author of it was acquainted with the literature, 
laws, and religion of Egypt; and, it may be 
added, with the country itself, but not personally 
with the land of Canaan ; (3) that some of the 
laws of the Pentateuch furnish indirect proof 
that they must have been written in the time of 
Moses; (4 and 5) that the unity of the Penta- 
teuch and unity of style are proofs of single au- 
thorship. These proofs are indirect. 

The direct proofs are, (1) that Moses received 
a command to write a history of the discomfiture 
of Amalek and the journeys of the children of 
Israel ; (2) that he is said to have written certain 



INTERNAL PROOFS. 263 

laws; (3) that the frequently recurring formula, 
" The Lord said unto Moses," in Leviticus and 
Numbers, is a proof that the Levitical law was 
given by Moses. 

The proof that Moses wrote the book of Gen- 
esis is only indirect, unless it can be shown " this 
book," and "this book of the law," Thepr00 f 
include it; in other words, that the wroteGene- 
five books of the Pentateuch make one sisindireet - 
inseparable volume. Genesis forms a fitting in- 
troduction to the Pentateuch, and constitutes a 
historical and organic unity with the other books. 
It is, indeed, the fundamental book of both the 
Old Testament and the New. It is, therefore, 
probable that the prophet and law-giver of the 
old dispensation, to whom tradition has attributed 
it, was its author. There is no one to whom it 
can, with so much propriety, be assigned. 



264 THE PENT A TE UCH 



CHAPTER II. 

EXTERNAL PROOFS THAT THE PENTATEUCH 
WAS WRITTEN BY MOSES. 

The internal evidence of the Mosaic author- 
ship of the Pentateuch is confirmed by abundant 
historical testimony. 

1. In the historical portion of the Old Testa- 
ment, from the book of Joshua down to Chron- 
Thesubse- ides, Ezra, and Nehemiah, frequent 
Sflhe ow s reference is made to " the law of Mo- 
as e cribTit to ses." That it was the Pentateuch is 
evident from the fact that " the law 
of Moses " regulated both the civil and religious 
polity of the Israelites ; and from the fact that, 
when references are made to that law, they are 
made sometimes to one book of the Pentateuch 
and sometimes to another. 

The book of Joshua is pervaded by reference 
to "the law of Moses." So close is the connec- 
tion of this book with the Pentateuch 

Joshua. 

that some critics consider them a sin- 
gle work, and make the date of its composition 
agree with their views of the date of the Penta- 



EXTERNAL PROOFS. 265 

teuch. Masius, Spinoza, Hasse, and Maurer place 
its composition after the exile; V. Langerke, in 
the time of Josiah ; and Ewald, in that of Ma- 
nasseh, contemporaneously with Deuteronomy. 
But a close examination of its contents and lan- 
guage proves that it could not have been com- 
posed later than the beginning of the reign of 
Saul ; and it may have been composed much ear- 
lier. We have, therefore, the testimony of the 
author of this book, at a time close to that of 
Moses, that the Pentateuch was written by that 
great law-giver and leader of Israel. (See refer- 
ences in the book of Joshua to the Pentateuch, 
Part I, Chap, iii, Sec. 3, pp. 231f.) 

The author of the book of Judges was well 
acquainted with the whole Pentateuch ; but he 
does not refer to it in the phraseology, 
" the law of Moses." There is no di- 
rect mention of it in the books of Samuel, though 
the writer of these books must have been familiar 
with its contents. (See Part I, Chap, iii, Sec. 3, 
pp. 233ff.) 

The first mention of " the law of Moses," 
after the establishment of the monarchy, is in 
David's charge to his son Solomon, on his death- 
bed, in which he exhorts Solomon " to walk in 
the ways of the Lord his God, to keep his stat- 
utes, and his commandments, and his judgments, 



266 THE PENTATEUCH. 

and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of 
K . n g Moses." (1 Kings ii, 3.) The words, 

" as it is written in the law of Moses," 
show that some part of the Pentateuch is referred 
to, probably Deuteronomy, and, if so, favoring 
the Mosaic authorship of that book. 

In 1 Kings viii, 9, it is stated: "There was 
nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, 
which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord 
made a covenant with the children of Israel, 
when they came out of the land of Egypt ;" and 
in verse 53, Solomon says : " As thou spakest 
by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou 
broughtest our fathers out of the land of 
Egypt." 

The books of Chronicles frequently mention 
" the law of Jehovah," or the book of " the law 
of Moses." (1 Chron. xvi, 40; xxii, 12, 13; 
2 Chron. xii, 1; xiv, 4; xv, 3; xvii, 9; xxv, 4; 
xxxi, 3, 4, 21; xxxiii, 8; xxxiv, 14; xxxv, 26.) 
In most of these passages the expression, " the 
law of the Lord " is used ; but it is fair to take 
this as a proof of Mosaic authorship, 

Chronicles. .. . , . ._ _. , - 

as it is said that Moses wrote by the 
command of God (Ex. xvii, 14 ; xxxiv, 27 ; Num. 
xxxiii, 1, 2) ; and in conformity with these pas- 
sages, the author of Chronicles says, " as it is 
written in the law of the book of Moses, where 



EXTERNAL PROOFS. 267 

the Lord commanded," etc. (2 Chron. xxv, 4) ; 
and " a book of the law of the Lord given by 
Moses." (2 Chron. xxxiv, 14.) 

In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, frequent 
mention is made of "the law of Moses," of " pre- 
cepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand Ezraand 
of Moses," of " the book of the law Ne * emiah - 
of Moses." (Ezra iii, 2; vi, 18; Neh. i, 7,8; 
viii, 1, 14; ix, 14; x, 29.) 

Daniel refers to " the law of Moses," in the 
confession of the sins of his people. " Yea, all 
Israel have transgressed thy law, even 
by departing, that they might not 
obey thy voice ; therefore, the curse is poured out 
upon us, and the oath that is written in the law 
of Moses the servant of God, because we have 
sinned against him." (Dan. ix, 11, 13; compare 
Lev. xxvi, 14; Deut. xxviii, 15; xxix, 18ff.) 

The prophets and Psalms have many allusions 
to the law as a written and existing document, 
show an acquaintance with its historical narra- 
tives, and find in it materials for their predictions 
and themes; but, with the exception of Malachi 
iv, 4, they say nothing of its authorship. 

2. The Apocryphal books speak of " the books 
of Moses," by which they mean, if we The Apocry . 
may judge from the references, the P halbooks - 
Pentateuch. (1 Esdras i, 6, 11; v, 49; ix, 39; 



268 THE PENTATEUCH. 

Tobit vi, 12; vii, 13; Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 23; Ba- 
ruch i, 20; ii, 28.) 

3. The Jewish synagogues acknowledged the 
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Paul says 
The Jewish (Acts xv, 21): " Moses of old time 

synagogues. hath {n Qyery ^ them that preacn 

him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath 
day." It is a well-known fact that the Penta- 
teuch was divided into fifty-four Parshioth (sec- 
tions), so as to provide a lesson for each Sabbath 
in the Jewish intercalary year, provision being 
made for the shorter year by the combination of 
two of the shorter sections. (Smith's " Diction- 
ary of the Bible," Articles Bible and Synagogue.) 

4. Joseph us, speaking of the sacred books of 
the Jews, says, " of them, five belong to Moses, 

which contain his laws and the tradi- 

Josephus. , . . . 

tions of the origin of mankind till his 
death." (Contra Apion, Book I, Sec. 8.) 

5. All the Jewish sects and parties, Pharisees, 
Sadducees, Essenes, Palestinian and Alexandrian 
The Jewish Jews, and Samaritans, were of one 

spots s,nd tliG 

Samaritans, mind as to the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch. (Keil's " Introduction to the 
Old Testament," Vol. I, p. 175.) 

6. Christ and his apostles did not propose to 
themselves to teach Biblical Criticism or to settle 
the Canon. In their discourses with the Jews, 
they may not have called in question popul^* 



EXTERNAL PROOFS. 269 

opinions, if right in the main ; but we can not, 
for a moment, suppose that they ac- Christand 
commoclated themselves to Jewish er- hlsa P° stles - 
rors. Our Savior would not have tolerated a 
forgery in the name of Moses; neither would his 
apostles have done it. The fact, therefore, that 
they acknowledged the Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch, is a strong proof that it was written 
by Moses. 

Christ makes numerous allusions to Moses as a 
prophet, a teacher, and a law-giver. He calls the 
Pentateuch " the law of Moses," the title by 
which it was designated by the Jews in his time. 
He says to the Jews : " For had ye believed 
Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote 
of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how 
shall ye believe my words?" (John v, 46, 47.) 
He asks on another occasion : " Did not Mo- 
ses give you the law?" (John vii, 19.) Peter 
quotes Deut. xviii, 15, as the words of Moses 
(Acts iii, 22) ; and Stephen does the same (Acts 
vii, 37). Philip believed that Moses wrote of 
Christ (John i, 45)* 

* Compare the following passages quoted by Christ, his disciples, 
and the Jews, and referred to Moses as their author : 

Ex. iii, 6, quoted in Mark xii, 26, and Luke xx, 37 ; Deut. xxiv, 1, 
in Mark x, 4, and Matt, xix, 8 ; Deut. xviii, 15, 18, in John v, 46, 47 ; 
Ex. xri, 15, and Num. xi, 7, in John vi, 31, 32 ; Lev. xii, 3, in John vii, 
22 ; Deut. xviii, 15, 18, in Acts iii, 22 ; vii, 37, and Luke xxiv, 44 ; Ex. 
xx, 12 ; Deut. v, 16, in Mark vii, 10 ; Ex. xxi, 17, Lev. xx, 9, in Matt. 
xv, 4 ; Deut. xxv, 5, in Mark xii, 19-24 ; Lev. xx, 10, Deut. xxii, 22, in 
John viii, 5 ; Lev. xiv, 3, 4, 10, in Matt, viii, 4, Mark i, 44, Luke v, 14. 



270 THE PENTATEUCH. 

7. The Christian Church, from the earliest 
The Christian ti mes > with the exception of some 
church. small parties, has held the same belief. 

In view of all the facts, we conclude that 
Moses wrote the Pentateuch ; and that it has 
been transmitted to us substantially as it came 
from his hands. This view has fewer difficulties 
than the opposite; and it is more in harmony 
with its own testimony, with that of the other 
books of the Old Testament, with the history 
and traditions of the Jews, and with the declara- 
tions of Christ and his apostles. Critical diffi- 
culties may be raised, which can not be easily 
solved; but that is no reason why we should 
disregard the voice of tradition, and the uniform 
testimony of Scripture, which ascribes " the law," 
to Moses. It is, moreover, always wise to con- 
sider carefully on which side the greatest difficul- 
ties lie. If this is done, the mind can not long 
hesitate, in the present instance, which view to 
adopt. But the question of the Pentateuch con- 
troversy, in some of its aspects, involves more 
than a choice between difficulties : it involves a 
choice between the authority of Scripture and the 
assumptions of critics. 



INDEX 



A. Page- 

Athanasius 23 

Aben-Esra 44 

Astruc 48 

Apocryphal Books 267 

B. 

Baur, F. C 35 

Biblical Criticism 11 

Biblical Criticism used in two 

senses 12 

Bretschneider 16 

Basedow 21 

Bogomili... 44 

Ben Jasos, Isaak 44 

Bleek... 51, 73, 88, 137, 138, 141, 142 

Bunsen 51 

Baumgarten 130 

Bible for Learners ...191, 197 

Dr.C. A 148 

C. 

Criticism, Biblical, see Bibli- 
cal Criticism 11 

Criticism, Higher, or Literary 12 

Consists of Two Parts 13 

Sometimes called " De- 
structive" 13 

Principles of, not entirely 

New 13 

History of, connected with 

that of Rationalism 14 

Leading Principle of 37 

Clementine Homilies 44 

Carlstadt 45 

Clericus, 47 

Colenso... 57, 79, 127, 134, 136, 140, 
142. 

Covenant-Code of Laws 145 

Curtiss, Prof. Samuel Ives 177 



Page. 

Chronicles, Sources of 197 

Chseremon 244 

Cadmus 246 

Chabas 248 

Chnoumhotep, Tomb of 247 

Chrysostom 23 

Clement of Alexandria 23 

Codes, the Three 145 

D. 

Deists, English 15 

De Wette 32, 51 

Documentary Hypothesis 47 

Delitzsch 52 

Davidson, Dr. Samuel 57 

Divine Names— Elohim, Jeho- 
vah, use of 65 

Dorner 32 

Deuteronomic Code 145 

Deuteronomy, Date of 174 

Diodorus Siculus 244 

E. 

Ernesti 21 

Eichhorn 25 

Ewald 55, 245 

F. 

Frederick the Great, of Prus- 
sia 20 

Fichte 28 

Farrar, Critical History of 

Free Thought 33 

Fragmentary Hypothesis 49 

G. 

Grotius 21 

Green, Dr. W. H 149 

George 174 

Graf 174 



272 



INDEX. 



H. Page. 

Harms, Claus 30 

Hagenbach 15 

Hurst, Dr. J. F 16 

Halle, University of 19 

Hegel 29 

Hobbes 45 

Hartmann 49 

Hupfeld 52 

Havernick 78, 113, 130 

High Places 168 

Hooykaas 197 

Hengstenberg 249 

Herodotus? 246 

Higher, or Literary Criticism. 12 
Humanism 19 

I. 

Infidels, French 20 

Ilgen 49 

Immer 35 

J. 

Jacobi 27, 32 

Jerusalem 49 

Josephus 244 

Jerome 23 

K. 

Kant 27 

Kurtz 143 

Kuenen 58 

Keil 92, 99 

Kahnis 31 

L. 

Lecky 17 

Lessing 21 

Literary Criticism 12 

Langerke 51 

Leathes, Prof. Stanley 230 

Lysimachus 244 

Longinus 245 

M. 

Mediation School 36 

Miehaelis 21 



Page. 

Masius, Andrew 45 

Miiller 32 

Murphy, Dr. J. G 128 

Milman, Henry Hart (History 
of the Jews) 173 

N. 

Nazarenes 44 

Novalis 30 

Napoleon 1 30 

Neander 32 

Nitzsch 32 

O. 

Olshausen 32 

Onias 173 

Oort, Dr. H 197 

Osirtasen II 247 

Origen 23 

P. 

Pietism 19 

Paulus 26 

Peyrerius, Isaak 45 

Pentateuch, Outline of 112 

External Unity of 112 

Internal Unity of 114 

Date of 227 

Mosaic Authorship of 243 

Ptolemaeus 43 

Porter, Prof J. L 91 

Priest-Code 145 

Pliny, the Elder 245 

Pentaour 246 

Prisse, M 248 

R. 

Rationalism, Term not of 

very Recent Date 14 

How Distinguished from 

English Deism 15 

Considered as a Natural 
Development of the Re- 
formation 18 

First Movements of, 

among the Socinians 19 

Romantic School 29 

Robinson, Dr. E 91 



INDEX. 



273 



S. Page- 

Socinianism 19 

Semler 21 

His Views on the Canon... 22 
His Theory of Accommo- 
dation 23 

Schelling 28,29 

Schleiermacher 31 

Strauss, D. F 33 

Spinoza 46 

Simon, Richard 46 

Schultens 49 

Supplementary Hypothesis.... 50 

Stahelin 51 

Smith, Prof.W. R.. 145, 148, 174, 183 

Schlegel 30 

Smith, Dr. W 155 

Synagogues 171 

Straho 244 

T. 

Trench 14 

Tubingen School 34 



Page. 

Tuch 51 

Tieck 30 

Twesten 32 

Tholuck 32 

Tacitus 245 

Tertullian 23 

U. 
Ullmann 32 

V. 

Vitringa 47 

Vater 49 

Vaihinger 87, 92 

Vatke :.... 174 

VonBohlen 174, 249 

W. 

Wolff. 20 

Wetstein 21 

Wellhausen 174 

Writing, Art of, known before 
Moses 247 



18 



#s 



lb 












'W 



liiWH 


m 


■ - 


ku&S 


K:,. 





^ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

I PreservationTechnologies 

S^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson ParK Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
-V; ■< (724)779-2111 






Ml 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




m 
m 



■ 



I 

ah 

■r 

I 




m 



wmm 




Wsm 




WSsm 




Hi 




IHBfll 




MB |§§; 


H 


Bill 


1 



